Friday, June 14, 2013

Deluded Pregnant Woman Insists Subway Passengers Cater To Her

A pregnant DC subway rider is making a public fuss that fellow passengers aren't giving up their seats for her.

The only one that ought to be obligated to give up their seat for a pregnant woman is the one that got her pregnant.

All other instances need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

For example, why should you give up your seat to a pregnant woman that is an obvious Obama voter that swivels like a bobble head every time she opens her constantly running mouth and does not comport herself with a spirit of granted for the kindnesses extended to her but rather displays an attitude of disgruntled entitlement?

Another example would be these women that insist on wearing these skin-tight maternity tops doing little to conceal their protruding navels.

To them, pregnancy is not about bringing the next generation of children into the world.

Rather, it is yet another opportunity for these narcissists to draw attention to themselves.

In her comments, part of the reason this woman wants subway riders to give up their seat to her is because her feet hurt.

So?

Those of the other passengers probably do as well.

Does her state of fertility somehow bestow upon her a sense of clairvoyance able to ascertain the medical conditions of the other passengers around her?

Maternal podiatric discomfort in all likelihood won’t adversely impact the health of the baby.

It might come as a surprise to the self-absorbed contemporary expectant mother, but any privilege lavished upon her is not so much for her benefit just because she had the talent to get pregnant but rather for the sake of the growing life inside her.

In media coverage of her remarks, it was not revealed exactly to what kind of job she rode the subway each day.

Thus, if it is of an occupation once held by men in the era when special consideration was given to the so-called weaker sex, why should she be granted special benefits now when she insists upon being treated as an equal the rest of the time?

by Frederick Meekins

No comments: