Friday, January 24, 2014

Wendy Davis's Unforgivable Sin

It’s one thing to fudge your resume. It’s one thing to enhance your life story. And its one thing to tell a few lies. Candidates for public office have survived such shenanigans.

If that were all Wendy Davis, candidate for governor of Texas had to worry about, she might, Naomi Schaeffer Riley writes, overcome it. Davis’s political career is over, Riley argues cogently, because she abandoned and then lost custody of her children.

In Riley’s words:

According to [Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne] Slater’s account, Davis decided to leave her children, then ages 8 and 2, with their father in Fort Worth while she went off to Harvard Law School. Who could resist the siren call of the Ivy League? Well, I suspect that most women and plenty of men would, if it meant moving across the country from their kids for three years.

But before we get to that, note two things. First of all, that 8-year-old was not her husband’s biological child. I don’t mean to cast any aspersions on Jeff Davis’ commitment to his daughters; in fact, he looks like the knight in shining armor of this story.

He not only took on raising his own daughter alone, but also another girl, who’d been abandoned first by her father and then her mother.

Second: After Jeff finished paying off the last of Wendy’s school loans, she filed for divorce and gave up custody of her children. According to Jeff, his wife just decided, “While I’ve been a good mother, it’s not a good time for me right now.”

Is Wendy Davis the new face of feminism?

Feminists should think long and hard before they make Wendy Davis the new face of their movement. Very few women, feminist or not, will be capable of understanding how a mother can abandon her children. To do so because it wasn't a good time for her is appalling.

Does feminism want the world to think that it is encouraging other mothers to do the same thing?

Riley concludes:

Americans will forgive a lot in a politician. But a woman who leaves her kids is just beyond the pale.


Anonymous said...

Feminist? LOL.

Wendy Davis is now looking like John Lennon's mother and father rolled into one. She should hope that her oldest daughter doesn't take up music and come out with a song like "Mother." It won't reflect well, to say the least.

And I wonder if people who sympathized with Lennon's plight of being abandoned as a kid will make this connection.

-- Days of Broken Arrows

Sam L. said...

Well, at least she didn't go all Medea on them. THAT would have blown any possibility of running for office.

Anonymous said...

Being liberal means never having to say you're sorry. I'm sure she's not. She went to Harvard Law School!

The more important question is: Did Davis feel liberated and fulfilled when she abandoned her children and left her sugar daddy?

If yes, she will receive a warm welcome from gender feminists. The narcissism and self-loathing are irresistible.


Dennis said...

Has anyone ever noticed how easy it is for feminists to attack a person's disability as if that disability affects their humanity? I suspect it comes from the general disregard for life that is part and parcel of feminism. It stems from taking the humanity of a child before it is born all the way up to birth and then into partial birth abortion.
It grows more disgusting as the acceptance of infanticide because the same argumentation can be utilized. It further manifests its self in the belief that any malady, disablement, et al also falls in line with the same justification for the "house of death" they have created.
Interesting that we have a significant number of military people who have disabilities caused by the actions of the US government. Are they to be made fun of and one wonders if their travails will match the problems of poor little princess Wendy Davis. I suspect that a large number of disabled veterans would gladly change places with her.
And so it follows that the same justifications for abortion, infanticide, disrespect for disabilities are just as good for killing off seniors. MY THEY JUST COULD NOT LIVE A GOOD LIFE????
Davis is the personification of feminism and where the acceptance of taking life before birth gradually grows into the acceptance of taking life for almost any reason if it interfere with one's desires.
Belonging to the DAV I cannot get over the total disregard for the people who have disabilities which in many cases are a product of putting one's life on line for these low lives.
The next time you see Arlington ask how much of life did these people lose and where would it have led had the ignored their duty.

Steve Finnell said...


Some theologians believe that all men are born with the guilt of Adam's sin. They believe all men are guilty of original sin and therefore are totally depraved at birth. They believe infants need to be forgiven for Adam's sin.

1. There no mention of original sin in Scripture.
2. There no Scripture that speaks of baptizing infants to wash away the guilt of Adam's sin.
3. There is no Biblical reference of any infant nor of any adult being guilty of inherited sin.


Matthew 18:2-3 And Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.(NKJV)

Was Jesus saying you have to totally depraved like theses little children to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Jesus was not baptizing infants and little children for the forgiveness of original sin.

John the Baptists was baptizing adults for the forgiveness of sins, after they repented. Infants and little children have no sin for which they need to repent. Even adults cannot repent for the sin of Adam and Eve.

There were no denominational churches baptizing infants and little children while Jesus walked the earth, yet Jesus said become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Original sin inherited from Adam is a doctrine invented by men.

Men are guilty of the sin they themselves commit.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (NKJV)

Men are sinners because they sin, not because Adam sinned.

James 2:9-11 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by law as transgressors......(NKJV)

When men transgress God's law they are guilty of sin. What law do infants break by being born? Infants are not transgressors of God's law. Infants are not sinners nor are they guilty of Adam's transgression.

1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (NKJV)

Sin is committed. Sin is not inherited.

James 1:14-15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (NKJV)

Are infants tempted in their mothers womb and sin before they are born? Of course not. Sin is committed by those capable of understanding right from wrong. Sin is committed by those who understand they are sinning against God.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.(NKJV)

Jesus did not say children are a slave to sin because they are guilty of original sin.

Jesus did not say you need to be baptized as infants so original sin can be washed away.

If men spend eternity in hell it will be because of unrepentant, unforgiven sins they have committed.

Not one person will go to hell because of the sin Adam committed.

The doctrine of original sin and the total depravity of man is man-made doctrine.


Unknown said...

You really have an awesome blog. You doing great and I really love it. Thanks for posting. God bless.