Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm surprised that they actually were smart enough to use the right address at the very least.

I'm surprised that they actually were smart enough to use the right address at the very least.

Seriously? In an uncalled for, extremely cruel moment, Fox anchor Chris Wallace fat-shamed Kelly Clarkson during a radio interview on Friday, April 4. Instead of talking politics, the Fox News Sunday host began discussing the singer's weight on The Mike Gallagher Show.

Completely off topic, the men began to randomly discuss Little Caesar's bacon-wrapped crust pizza and fat-shaming. But before Wallace could say his piece, Gallagher was first to bring up the American Idol alum.

"Have you seen Kelly Clarkson? You know the singer, Kelly Clarkson? Holy cow, did she blow up," Gallagher said, via Mediate.

Wallace paused for a moment, and replied: "Really? Do we want to talk about some of your friends? Kelly Clarkson's got a lovely voice." He continued: "She could stay off the deep dish pizza for a little while."

Sadly, this isn't the first time Clarkson, 32, has been criticized for her weight following her pregnancy with daughter River Rose, whom she welcomed with husband Brandon Blackstock in June 2014. Last month, British TV personality Katie Hopkins said that Clarkson had eaten her backup singers.

Clarkson responded to the ruthless comments during The Ellen DeGeneres Show on Friday. "I love that people think [the topic] is new. Like, welcome to the past 13 years," she said, shrugging off the insults. "I yo-yo. Sometimes I'm more fit and I get into kickboxing and hardcore, and then sometimes I don't and go, 'Nope, I'd rather have wine!'"

Post some real news

People who spend thousands of dollars on fancy pregnancy drugs and rackets like this perplex the hell out of me.

You want children, but are unwilling/unable to carry them yourself?

There are litereally hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of children, both domestically and abroad, that you could give a wonderful life to by adopting them.

I understand the adoption process can be very difficult.

But if you're not willing to go through that to make a child's life better, then what the *** makes you think you're cut out to be a parent in the first place?

Its not someones individual responsibility nor is it any kind of requirement that if you're unwilling or unable to give birth that you must pick from the pool of children already out there. It doesn't make them any less cut out to be a parent either.

People with enough disposable income to farm out (literally) childbirth typically see the process as the best use of time or can't make their own. Best use of time, no 'downsides' (on your end at least) and a kid to boot? Sweeet.

People don't always want to adopt kids.

Through surrogacy you can still have a little piece of yourself in their instead of just adopting a stranger.

Its not someones individual responsibility nor is it any kind of requirement that if you're unwilling or unable to give birth that you must pick from the pool of children already out there. It doesn't make them any less cut out to be a parent either.

Adoption is still taboo and people have a disposition to wanting their own child, made of their own genetic material.

People don't always want to adopt kids.

Through surrogacy you can still have a little piece of yourself in their instead of just adopting a stranger.

Its not someones individual responsibility nor is it any kind of requirement that if you're unwilling or unable to give birth that you must pick from the pool of children already out there. It doesn't make them any less cut out to be a parent either.

And? What does this have to do with people seeking out the lowest bidder abroad, leading to undercutting, thus worse pre-natal care, at the risk of the well-being of the host mother and child(ren), and creates a blackmarket of infants?

I don't necessarily think you're not cut out to be a parent if you don't want to adopt at all. I think it makes you less cut out to be a parent if your excuse for not adopting is "it's too hard".

And? What does this have to do with people seeking out the lowest bidder abroad, leading to undercutting, thus, worse pre-natal care, at the risk of the well-being of the host mother and child(ren), and creates a blackmarket of infants?

Based on what? There are many factors that would make it a lot harder to raise a kid you'd have adopted. Can you imagine raising your own kid from birth as opposed to possibly an 8 y/o that has been raised in the foster system and doesn't know or trust you or anyone for that matter?

It doesn't make you less cut out to be a parent at all. Parenting is pretty much a trial by fire type of thing anyways. None of us really seem to find out til it actually happens.

They're almost two seperate issues. One is India's lack of care for women and public health (not a new issue for India). The other is America's perception of pregnancy, child bearing, etc. (Which has always been problematic, imo).

The two issues just sort of intertwine into a hot mess of "what the *** is happening here?"

Great episode, but very depressing when you realize just how uninformed and unwilling to be informed people are.

On John Oliver, Edward Snowden Says Keep Taking *** Pics

Okay, well, if you're okay with saying adoption isn't an issue because "it's too hard", please join the line of people who are willing to give the stamp of approval to abortions for the sake of genetic defects because "it's too hard".

I understand not everyone is willing to adopt. I just think that if you can't have your own, and you're unwilling to adopt because "it's too hard", maybe you should just buy a cat and get a new hobby because kids are, apparently, not in the cards for you.

An unwillingness to adopt coupled with the inability or unwillingness to give birth does not make someone unfit to be a parent.

Your qualifiers are just born out of your own twisted sense of morality.

There are plenty of people who are unwilling to adopt that have surrogates and are great parents.