Super egotistical female minister

[Violet]

Better question: why do you care about her age or religious status?

Because those classify her as a willfully irresponsible, super egotistical hypocrite who gambles unacceptable risks with the lives of children who deserve 'normal' parents and a 'normal' life.
Chances are the boys will lose their mother before they are even teenagers, while that 'mother' purposely denied them a father from day one!

Willfully irresponsible, how?

Super egotistical hypocrite, how?

One who gambles "unacceptable" (and just what does that mean?) risks... with the lives of children (who deserve what?) no less?

I'm not a 'normal' parent by most standards and I'm not sure I can give a kid a 'normal' life. Just what do these terms mean?

Denied them a father? I didn't know that fathers were necessary for the development of a kid. One of my favorite 'kids' (my niece) has grown up with an abusive father and a psychotic mother who divorced and separated when she was some age around 12, and I think she turned out okay.

Why do you care that they might lose their mother by the time they are teenagers? Plenty of kids lose their father before their born, or their mother as they are born, or even both afterwards... where's your great outcry of injustice for these kids?

---

Oh, and before I forget:

---

---

Got to celebrate doughnut day when it comes

---

And why the 'mother' remark? She's their mother however I look... why do you hate this woman who never hurt you?

[Anomalocaris]

Better question: why do you care about her age or religious status?

Because those classify her as a willfully irresponsible, super egotistical hypocrite who gambles unacceptable risks with the lives of children who deserve 'normal' parents and a 'normal' life.
Odds are the boys will lose their mother before they are even teenagers, while that 'mother' purposely denied them a father from day one!

That might apply to any single mother genetically predisposed to early death.

In her defense, she used both doner sperm and donor egg, so she may well have spared her children the increased probability of genetic defect that comes with user geezer eggers and sperm.

Also she reduced herself to nothing but an incubator, passing none of her own genes to offsprings she at least commit herself partially to supporting, that might be seen as not so egotistical.

[Child of Stardust]

She might have been taking an unwise risk, and it might be a bit selfish for her to be raising kids at an age when they're bound to lose her fairly early on in their lives (though lots of kids lose their parents and turn out fine, as Lilly Blossom said, and besides it's not uncommon for grandparents to raise kids). But I don't think calling her a "super egotistical hypocrite" is deserved...or accurate. Even if she messed up (and we can't say for sure if she has yet...it may work out for the best) she's probably a perfectly decent person in other areas of her life.

So she's older and desperately wants kids? That's not uncommon. It may be selfish, but it certainly doesn't make her "super egotistical" and honestly, I don't even understand where you are getting "hypocrite" from (did she speak against older people raising children?) So she's not the ideal parent? Few parents are. If we only allowed perfect parents to raise children, we'd have to stop reproducing. This may not be the ideal situation, but it's not a guaranteed disaster, and who knows? It may end up being very worthwhile. Those two kids may grow up to be wonderful people who make a positive difference to humanity.

[Rokcet Scientist]

who knows? It may end up being very worthwhile.

Correct: "Who knows?" It is a complete gamble. "It may end up being very worthwhile", but reality's odds are it won't.

Those two kids may grow up to be wonderful people who make a positive difference to humanity.

Well, that's a relief! Then Xtianity isn't so bad either: "who knows? It may end up being very worthwhile. Those Xtians may turn out to be wonderful people who make a positive difference to humanity."

Yeah, right.

[Violet]

Correct: "Who knows?" It is a complete gamble. "It may end up being very worthwhile", but reality's odds are it won't.

It seems completely worth it to the mother.

[Rokcet Scientist]

It seems completely worth it to the mother.

Oh, and that makes it OK?

9/11 Was "worth it" to the planners/perpetrators too.
So 9/11 must be OK too then.

[Violet]

It seems completely worth it to the mother.

Oh, and that makes it OK?

9/11 Was "worth it" to the planners/perpetrators too.

Apples and oranges. They're both fruit, but they taste different and grow off of different tress.

[Rokcet Scientist]

It seems completely worth it to the mother.

Oh, and that makes it OK?

9/11 Was "worth it" to the planners/perpetrators too.

Apples and oranges. They're both fruit, but they taste different and grow off of different tress.

No, your apples and oranges are the consequences, in both cases, and the odds for misery.

[Autumnlicious]

A better question is, given all the misery and suffering unwanted children suffer through, and the lack of another partner (male or female) in a child's life does no service to said child's mental stability, is it a wise thing to give social acceptance to the circumstances given above?

I think not. However, there is little I can do other than criminalizing stupidity. And even then, the perpetrator here may end up proving us wrong.

Still, I do worry about her children and how they'll be able to adapt to the much higher chance of losing their mom prematurely (i.e. well before they're ready).

Once again, given that she is a lunatic fundamentalist pastor, her kids will no doubt grow up with artificial brain damage anyways. So, unless she neglects or denies them medical treatment, etc, etc, you're not going to get much worse than the standard single mom in her locale.

[Violet]

I'll never be ready to lose my mom, or my dad. It'll be a sad day whenever it does come, and eventually it will, unless I die first.

@RS: Odds shmodds. I've been plenty miserable, I'm alive, and I'm okay. What's more: I'm generally happy.