Any push for statehood rewards Hamas, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has claimed, after several nations signaled support

Israel will respond to any nations who move to unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has claimed.

Saar issued the warning at a joint press conference with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, on Sunday, following announcements by several countries of their intent to recognize Palestine.

The Israeli diplomat claimed that any such unilateral moves would undermine prospects for the peace process and would compel the Jewish state to take measures in response.

Palestine’s sovereignty is recognized by 147 countries, including Russia and the majority of nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. However, most Western European countries, as well as Israel and the US, do not officially consider Palestine a sovereign state. Many nations have advocated for Palestinian recognition as the only way to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, which escalated in 2023 when Israel launched a military operation in Gaza following a surprise Hamas attack.

Saar claimed such initiatives were “not constructive but counterproductive” and served “as a prize for Hamas terror.”

Wadephul, however, said that a two-state solution remained “the best chance for Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, security, and dignity.”

The Media Line news outlet reported on Sunday, citing unnamed diplomatic sources, that US President Donald Trump could formally recognize the state of Palestine at the upcoming Gulf-US summit in Saudi Arabia.

Although US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has denied any such plans, speculation has grown in the wake of comments Trump made earlier this month in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Trump repeatedly hinted at “a very, very big announcement about a certain subject,” which he said would be revealed either before or during his upcoming trip to the Middle East.

Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron indicated that Paris could move to recognize a Palestinian state as early as June, during a United Nations conference in New York.

Russia has long advocated for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, reaffirming its stance during a recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Moscow. Russia has also called for an immediate end to the violence in Gaza.

What happened 13 years ago is happening again today with the election of Pope Leo XIV. He does not disdain the trappings of the institutional papacy. The heterodox left is freaking out, not only over the Mozzetta and papal stole, which Leo wears so impeccably, but also because he now uses an upgraded vehicle  for transportation and will live in the Apostolic Palace instead of the Vatican Motel VI. 

Leo is also very clear. They know he will not have a magisterium of off-the-cuff homilies and interviews and act like a pop psychologist decrying the mental illness of backwards. The Vatican will NOT have to do damage control over some of the things that they had to do when Francis spoke. 

There will be a solid papal magisterium as there has been with all other popes except Francis. 

Pope Leo condemns liturgy as spectacle and superficial!

Finally, Pope Leo as a priest and bishop decried that over the last 60 years, the liturgy has been transformed or celebrated as a spectacle rather than as a Mystery. For him a spectacle is superficial and distracts from the true nature of the Liturgy as people discovering the Mystery of Christ, not technical spectacles. 

I would suspect that Pope Leo appreciates the TLM for its superb enablement of priests and laity to experience the solid foundation of Jesus Christ in the Mystery of the Mass, not some kind of man made spectacle of light and thunder. 

This is an example of superficial spectacle and entertainment that moves the Mass away from Christ and Mystery!:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for unconditional negotiations to begin on Thursday

Beijing has voiced support for renewed peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The statement follows a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin for negotiations to begin as early as Thursday, and an offer from Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky to appear in person at the negotiations.

Putin on Sunday urged Kiev to resume talks suspended in 2022, stating that discussions could take place in Türkiye, which Ankara has reportedly agreed to host.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on Monday that China supports “all efforts dedicated to peace” and hopes both sides can reach a “fair, lasting, binding peace agreement acceptable to all parties” through negotiation.

Lin added that Beijing has consistently called for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and would continue to play “a constructive role in defusing the crisis.”

Ukraine and the European NATO members that make up the ‘coalition of the willing’ have demanded that Russia agree to a 30-day truce before any direct negotiations take place.

US President Donald Trump, however, has called for Russia-Ukraine negotiations to start as soon as possible, arguing that Washington has done its part in creating the conditions for diplomacy. Moscow has expressed concern that Kiev would use a ceasefire to reconstitute its military forces before renewing hostilities.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who banned direct negotiations with Russia in 2022 as long as Putin remains in office, said on Sunday that he is willing to meet with the Russian leader in Istanbul if his conditions – including a 30-day truce – are met. Axios subsequently cited a senior Ukrainian official who said Zelensky will be present in Türkiye on Thursday even if Russia does not announce a ceasefire on Monday, as Kiev has demanded.

The US president has said he aims to reduce prescription drug prices by matching American rates to the lowest worldwide

US President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping executive order to cut prescription drug prices in America by up to 80%, in what he teased as “one of the most important and impactful” orders in the nation’s history.

In a post on his Truth Social network on Sunday, Trump cryptically announced that his “next TRUTH will be one of the most important and impactful I have ever issued.” 

Three hours later, the president announced that he will sign “one of the most consequential Executive Orders in our Country’s history,” aimed at cutting prescription drug costs by aligning them with the lowest global prices. The signing is scheduled for 9am Monday.

“I will be instituting a MOST FAVORED NATION’S POLICY whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World,” Trump said in a follow-up post. “Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices will be REDUCED, almost immediately, by 30 percent to 80 percent.” 


The US currently spends around $400 billion a year on prescription drugs, often paying triple what other countries do and more than any other nation, according to the National Health Expenditure Accounts.

Trump argued that the change will, “for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA,” save trillions, and lower healthcare costs nationwide.

“Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” he added.

The policy will affect Medicare, which insures around 70 million older Americans. During his previous term, Trump sought to cut prices for physician-administered drugs by benchmarking them against rates in peer nations with government-set pricing. The order was blocked by US courts and later rescinded by the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Legal barriers to these policies were removed in 2022 when the Democrat-led Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, granting Medicare limited negotiating powers.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which has sued the Trump administration over similar efforts, told the Financial Times that “government price setting in any form is bad for American patients” and blamed rising costs on “middlemen in the system.” The pharmaceutical sector has also campaigned against price caps, warning they could limit innovation and reduce spending on research.

Trump rejected the claims, accusing drug companies of using research costs as an excuse to overcharge consumers. “All of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the ‘suckers’ of America, ALONE,” he said.

Assessing a bear market rally proves challenging when you experience it firsthand. It is only in hindsight that the complete picture reveals itself to investors. Of course, after a bear market rally, investors tend to review their investments and speculate on what they should have done differently.

Retail investors seem to view the recent sharp correction as possibly finished. As I noted last week on X, despite the near 20% correction in the markets, retail investors piled into US equities at a record pace. Of course, historically, retail investors were considered a contrarian indicator, but in recent years, particularly post-pandemic, they have been aggressive buyers of any dip in the market. Of course, after 15 years of monetary and fiscal interventions to stave off deeper bear markets, their "buy the dip" mentality is unsurprising.

Before we go further, we should discuss what a "bear market rally" is to frame better our discussion about what the possibilities and probabilities of what happens next.

Bear Market Rally Or Just A Correction?

A bear market rally represents a short-term increase in stock prices that emerges while the market is in a downward trend. Such price rallies bring forth positive expectations because markets experience significant upward movements throughout several weeks or months. These rallies do not indicate any actual market recovery. They serve as brief interruptions before the dominant downward trend continues. The general drivers of these bear market rallies generally result from investors buying back their short positions, market participants feeling increasingly optimistic, and technical indicators showing oversold conditions. As such, they increase risk assets.

However, the fundamental problems that initiated the previous corrective phase are still present. Such factors generally range from declining earnings to monetary condition changes, rising recession risk, economic policy uncertainty, or a combination that persists despite temporary price increases. Reality eventually returns to market fundamentals, which makes the rally disappear before the bearish trend reemerges. A good example was 2022, where investors experienced several bear market rallies amid the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates while Russia invaded Ukraine. Each time the bear market rally occurred, it sucked bullish investors back into the market and left them stranded.

Conversely, a correction, which occurs during an upward market trend and represents a decline of 10% or more, differs from a bear market rally. Generally, a correction is a short, singular down cycle within a rising trend. These events typically stem from short-term market anxieties, including overbought positions, geopolitical disturbances, and policy modifications. Yet, they do not shift the future direction of the market. The market stabilizes after a correction because positive economic trends and favorable earnings support its upward movement. The fundamental distinction rests in the environment and period of the market situation. The basic trend stays solid during a bull market correction, and investors will eventually experience positive outcomes from new price peaks. A good example of corrections within a bullish trend is evident in the 2023-2024 market. Despite a bank crisis, concerns of AI, or leveraged blowups, the market recovered quickly and moved to new highs.

The risk for investors is the real-time determination of what type of corrective action we are in. Investors who reenter risk assets during a bear market rally face additional market declines since the primary downward trend continues after the brief recovery. Investors who buy the dip during a corrective phase in a bull market benefit.

One grievance I often receive from readers is that I don't tell you the answer. The reason is that neither I nor anyone else can predict the future. All I can do for you is address the possibilities and probabilities of what can happen so you can manage your investment risk accordingly.

With that said, let's dig into both cases.

The Bull Case For A Correction

The bulls can certainly make a case for continuing the bull market that began in October 2022.

First, Q1 earnings delivered above-average results overall but were primarily driven by major technology companies and the AI-powered "Magnificent 7." That cohort continues to provide the cornerstone for investor optimism. However, even though the largest capitalization-weighted companies delivered the bulk of earnings, the proportion of companies beating estimates remained well above the long-term average of 74%.

Secondly, financial conditions refer to current conditions across financial markets that can affect the dynamics of the economy. Those factors include improved interest rate levels, U.S. Treasury yields, credit risk spreads, equity valuations, and currency strength, which are supportive of the financial markets.

Furthermore, sentiment among both professional and retail investors has rebounded from its profoundly negative state, which is bringing buyers back into the market. Notably, that sentiment remains far from optimistic, providing further support for asset prices. The chart below shows the Z-score (standard deviation) of the net bullish sentiment of both retail and professional investors. Profoundly negative readings are often coincident with market lows.

Overall, investors maintain a favorable position toward the market because the current conditions provide sufficient space for constructive improvements without leading to excessive speculation. The recent market decline resulting from tariff concerns has proven more significant than expected. However, it is worth noting that spikes in policy uncertainty tend to mark the bottom of market corrections rather than the beginning. Given that policy uncertainty around tariffs and other political statements about trade barriers has reduced in intensity lately, this could become supportive for the market.

Are these factors a guarantee that the recent market correction is over? No. But historically, depressed sentiment, high levels of policy uncertainty, and easing financial conditions have often been the contrarian setup that investors should be looking for.

But let's review the case for a bear market rally.

Why This Could Still Be A Bear Market Rally

Multiple indicators indicate this could be a bear market rally. Since markets are forward-looking, investors focus on future earnings growth to justify paying higher valuation multiples today. The problem for the market currently is that economic data, particularly the key ingredient of employment, which drives consumption, is softening. As we discussed in this past weekend's #BullBearReport such is critical given that employment and consumption drive earnings growth.

“Since 1947, earnings per share have grown at 7.7% annually, while the economy expanded by 6.40% annually. That close relationship in growth rates should be logical, particularly given the significant role that consumer spending has in the GDP equation.” – Market Forecasts Are Very Bullish

“Since, consumer spending comprises nearly 70% of the GDP calculation, everything else, from business investment to imports and exports, is a function of the consumer’s “demand.” In other words, if the consumer is slowing down or contracting spending, businesses will not 'invest' in expansion projects, increasing employment, or buying more products for resale. That relationship is shown in the chart below, which compares PCE to jobs and private investment.”

Economic data is softening as post-COVID monetary supports fade. As such, consumer confidence indicators show a downward trend, especially regarding expectations about the future. The chart below shows the difference between current and future expectations. Historically, very low readings are consistent with more protracted bear markets and deeper corrections.

Lastly, the market's technical backdrop remains a near-term concern. While momentum and relative strength have improved, those factors are beginning to wane, suggesting buyers may be reaching near-term exhaustion. Secondly, volume has been weak during this corrective process. If this were just a short-term correction, we would have liked to see much stronger buying coming into the market. Finally, support is just below current market levels, which may limit near-term declines. However, there is formidable overhead resistance just above. The 100 and 200-DMA and the January lows will likely prove challenging for the markets to crack without a pullback to support first.

As noted, numerous investors failed to predict how quickly or dramatically the market decline would be. As such, these "trapped longs" will likely become sellers as soon as this rally falters. While our 2022 example of bear market rallies set new lows, this does not mean we will repeat that process. A pullback to support could hold if economic data stabilizes, trade deals progress, or the Federal Reserve cuts rates.

Conclusion

So, what does this mean for investors? With no clear indication of the market's next move, investors will likely benefit from managing risk exposures. Moreover, investors must avoid making absolute decisions because both sides present compelling evidence. More often than not, markets resolve themselves in a more bullish fashion. Therefore, adopting a more bearish view has a risk associated with it. The current market rally does not necessarily negate the risk of this being a bear market rally. Nor does it signify the end of the correction.

The essential question is whether market risks are appropriately incorporated into prices and if upcoming returns justify additional market participation. For now, caution is prudent. The current macroeconomic environment shows gradual improvement without being strong. While Q1 earnings reports showed strength, the most notable risk to investors is the drastic cuts to forward earnings. Such certainly does not portray economic optimism.

Investors can do a few things to navigate the market's next move.

1. Focus on maintaining portfolio equilibrium instead of following recent market gains.
2. Review your current exposure positions for alignment with current risk patterns.
3. Reassess position sizes, tighten stops, and avoid concentration in crowded trades.
4. Risk management can be achieved by combining cash reserves with portfolio hedging strategies.

The trick to navigating markets is not to try to “time” the market. That is impossible. Successful long-term management is understanding when “enough is enough” and being willing to take profits and protect your gains. That is our situation for many stocks after the robust rally from the recent lows.

With markets in a corrective process and trading below long-term moving averages, there is an opportunity to rebalance risk and reduce portfolio volatility.

Unfortunately, many investors will opt to “hope” for further gains, but will sell at lower levels if the correction continues.

Trade accordingly.

The post A Bear Market Rally? appeared first on RIA.

Tehran won’t dismantle its entire atomic infrastructure to reach a new deal, President Masoud Pezeshkian has said

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has rejected a key US demand to dismantle his country’s nuclear infrastructure, during the latest talks in Oman. He insisted that Iran’s nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only.

Addressing a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Pezeshkian said Tehran is “serious” in its renewed engagement with Washington. “We are negotiating [seriously] because we desire peace.”

However, he dismissed the US demand regarding nuclear infrastructure, calling it “unacceptable,” while stressing that Iran “will continue to pursue these peaceful activities in a powerful manner.”

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reported progress in the negotiations with the US in Muscat, Oman, noting that the sides have reached “a better understanding.”

“The fourth round of discussions was much more serious and candid than the previous three rounds,” Araghchi told reporters. “We’ve moved beyond generalities and started dealing with more detailed issues,” he said, calling the talks “constructive.”

Araghchi stressed that uranium enrichment and the removal of sanctions are central to Iran’s position. “From our point of view, enrichment is an issue that must definitely continue, and there is absolutely no room for compromise there,” he stated. He added, however, that the level and scale could be subject to certain limitations for “confidence-building purposes.”

The US and its allies have expressed concern about Iran’s enrichment activities, which they fear could provide the country with a head start to quickly produce weapons-grade uranium. Tehran has repeatedly dismissed the allegations that it is seeking to create a nuclear bomb.

Commenting on the talks, an unnamed senior US official told CNN that the discussions “were again both direct and indirect” and that Washington “was encouraged by today’s outcome and looks forward to their next meeting, which will happen in the near future.” He added that the sides are now expected to focus on “technical elements.”

The US unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal just three years later. US President Donald Trump argued that it did nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The agreement focused on easing sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

LOL. I was using Grok as a research assistant just now, asking what I had written about something or other since I started writing online in 2009.

Grok thinks I’m dead!

Grok thinks I’m dead, *even though I’m the one asking Grok for resources about my past online writing!*

Caveat inquisitor!

On the other hand, Grok did just give me quite an accurate recapitulation of my conversations with Zippy about usury, back in the day. It even got usury right (i.e., *not* high interest rates, but rather, mutuum contracts).

NB: I am *not* suicidal. Nor do I think I matter enough for The Powers That Be to want to expend resources on rubbing me out (not yet, at least, although I’m sure I am on their list (as are you, you Nazi Orthosphere reader)).

This whole thing is just silly.

I mean, sure, any search engine trained on the products of fallible humans is bound to generate fallacious results from time to time. But still. Really? Grok can see perfectly well that I posted here just the other day. Sheesh.

Just be super careful out there and triple check all the citations you get from AI.

Honestly, it looks to me as though AI is bound to drive the greater part of human interaction down to the level of the high school sophomore. Not that there is anything wrong with high school sophomores; I’m more or less myself just one such, writ experienced.

Still. Really?

My American grandmother, who raised seven children in Floral Park, New York, loved to tell people with a big smile, “Kids come with instructions!” My Cuban grandmother, who raised fourteen children—first in Havana and then in the US—told me when I asked her if she always wanted fourteen kids, “Oh no! I wanted twelve. But God answered my prayers and even gave me two more!” Their words and their witness communicated a mentality of abundance: God provided them with everything they needed to raise their children, including many siblings for their children. 

As a young woman in my twenties with multiple degrees from Ivy League universities, I believed that I needed to plan my career and family together, optimizing both according to my preferences. As I entered my thirties, my career ascended, but my dreams of family life faded; I was always the bridesmaid but never the bride.  

But thanks to my two grandmothers, who raised large, loving families, I was always surrounded by aunts, uncles, cousins, and my own three brothers along with their children. If I were single and childless—not by choice but by circumstance—I would fully embrace being an older cousin, an aunt, and a great babysitter to my friend’s kids.  

I never missed a chance to cuddle a newborn baby. When a colleague from China gave birth, I rushed to her house to meet the baby. She had struggled with infertility for years and could not have been more joyful to have a baby. Yet, practically in tears, she admitted that she had never held a baby until she had one of her own. She was afraid when he cried and didn’t know how to hold him.  

I simply grabbed the baby, rocked him at my hip, and sang to him to soothe him. Then I wrapped him in a blanket, fed him a bottle, and burped him. Soon he was fast asleep in my arms, and I smiled, relishing the heavenly delight of feeling a newborn baby breathe. 

“How did you learn to do that?” my friend asked in amazement. 

My friend had the gift of a child, but she needed to learn from someone how to nurture her baby. Her question made me realize that I had taken for granted my upbringing in a large family where everyone shares in the joys and burdens of raising many children. 

In February 2025, I sat down at the New York Encounter with two demographers, W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia and Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. They shared startling statistics showing that my Chinese friend, a woman with one child, and I, a woman with no biological children, represent the new global norm.   

What drives the global demographic shift toward women choosing not to have children or having only one child? What are the social implications of a world with fewer children? What wisdom can we learn from past generations with larger families that might encourage both women and men to appreciate the joys of family life, even as children challenge our plans in ways that are both perplexing and beautiful? 

During our conversation, Eberstadt presented a sobering view of global demographics (that is, if you care about the future of the human population). We have surpassed the so-called demographic transition that was expected to yield just enough children to replace our population (two children per woman). Notably, this demographic decline is not an exclusive phenomenon of North America and Europe. 

Eberstadt explained, for example, that the birthrate (i.e., average number of children per woman) is 0.55 in Seoul, Korea. Perhaps more surprisingly, the birth rate is only 1.2 in Istanbul, Turkey, and 1.2 in Calcutta, India. Three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries where the population is declining. There’s one regional exception to these trends—the African continent. However, Eberstadt emphasized that even Africa’s population trends are right behind the rest of the globe; that is, Africa, too, will soon have a shrinking population. 

Global depopulation is not entirely a new phenomenon; however, what’s new is that it seems to be by choice, Eberstadt said. Previous instances of global depopulation were caused by war, famine, or natural disasters. Yet today, many areas experiencing population decline have known peace and prosperity, which, at least in theory, should alleviate concerns about raising children.  

Why, then, are people not having children? In the United States, Wilcox explained, many young adults, both men and women, seem to prioritize careers over family. According to Wilcox’s predictions, one-third of young Americans will remain unmarried. He countered the idea that the childless are happier than parents. As it turns out, the freedom to pursue our self-interest without the constraints of marriage and children does not lead to happiness. On average, Wilcox noted, his research shows married people with kids are happier than their single and childless counterparts.  

As he elaborates in his 2024 book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization, the American heart is closing. The great paradox is that many young people have ambitious plans and high ideals for marriage and family, yet they postpone those dreams to first pursue a career, travel, and accumulate wealth. The result is that many people simply end up never married and lonely, with enough money in the bank to remain entertained, but never truly happy. 

Both Eberstadt and Wilcox emphasized that the decision to have children or not changes the entire society around you. When large families were common, society was oriented toward raising the next generation: churches, schools, and families collaborated to support one another. Everyone (married or not) was, in some form or other, passing on wisdom and nurturing the next generation. No one ever chided either of my grandmothers for wasting the world’s resources on their children.  

Deep inside most men and women, the desire for children may indeed exist. However, the unintended consequence of public policy efforts and social pressure to restrict family size to two children per woman has been a significant loss of social learning regarding childrearing. The majority of the world’s population today does not grow up around siblings or younger children, often experiencing social isolation and fearing the burdens of raising a child of their own. 

Eberstadt and Wilcox pointed out that, due to personal choices and social changes—including the rise of the smartphone—many people seek meaning solely through achievement or online entertainment. Intimate relationships recede, people turn inward, new marriages have become rare events, and bringing new life into the world is viewed as detrimental to the environment.   

As I earned a Ph.D. in sociology at Princeton University just one year after Wilcox, I recognized that by the late 1990s, almost no one in the population demographics guild still believed the simplistic narrative that population growth causes global poverty, environmental degradation, and general human misery.  

As a Catholic woman, I believed my happiness lay in a vocation of marriage and motherhood. Yet, when I called off my plans for marriage in my late thirties—because my former fiancé decided he did not want the responsibility of raising children—it seemed beyond my control that I would become one of the statistics of a childless, successful career woman. What was I to do? How was I to live a happy life? It didn’t help when the advice I sometimes got was that single people, and married but infertile couples c, are left doomed by our so-called “choices” to be childless and unhappy. 

I learned that people with large families (and today, a family of more than one child could be called large) longed to be surrounded by community. So, I sought out friends with kids—babysitting, going to kids’ movies, and enjoying countless kids’ birthday parties and baptisms. I didn’t need instructions—I just stepped in, held babies, played with toddlers, and relished the hugs and smiles I received. When, at age forty-eight, I married a wonderful man, the fact that I had learned to build intimate relationships with others’ children prepared me to embrace becoming a stepmother and supportive wife. 

In today’s world, however, many people need guidance on how to raise children. On Tammy Peterson’s podcast recently, I heard a single woman in her twenties lament how hard it is to come from a small family and no church community because it is difficult to find mentors whose lives center on faith and family. Holidays are particularly lonely for single people, and many of them have never experienced a large family meal. An older woman on the podcast wisely encouraged all Christian families to invite single people over for Christmas.  

Religious individuals are an exception to the broad trend of fewer marriages and smaller families. Wilcox, who is Catholic, has five adopted children and has three biological children. Large families often look to each other for support. But it’s important for large families to welcome single people into their homes, as the Wilcoxes did for me. Large families that trust in God’s providence witness to the fact that the suffering and sacrifice of raising children are nothing compared to the joy of a child’s gift of unconditional love. 

In a world where many people are advised to weigh the benefits of marriage and having children, being around kids teaches us to open our hearts to a child’s self-giving love that is unconditional. Even amid chaos, a child will often stop, look you in the eyes, and say, “I love you.” That unconditional “I love you” means something like, “It makes me happy to be with you just because you are my mom or dad.” Or in my case, it means “I love you just because you choose to play with me and pay attention to me.” Children easily pour love into anyone around them, instantly expanding our hearts. If we stop being around children, it’s no wonder the American heart is closing. 

Raising children comes with its burdens. However, it’s the most beautiful thing we can do because children bring love into even the most challenging situations. Despite the dread many adults may carry in their hearts about the future, children see the world as it truly is: full of beauty and mystery. A beautiful, mysterious world means the future is full of possibilities. 

Ultimately, I answered the panel’s question, “Why have children?” by sharing the answer from a graduate student I teach. Carrying her second child and trying to finish her master’s degree far away from her biological family (other than her husband and two-year-old daughter), she told me, “When you are expecting a child, you are aware that inside you a mystery is growing that will one day come out of you. Nothing is more exciting.” 

My student’s heart is wide open. She dreams of teaching orphans in Africa, where she is from. She knows our society ignores so-called unwanted children who are just as capable of giving and receiving love as anyone else. She knows God’s love can heal abandoned children. 

Throughout my life, I have held many babies, although none was my own. In doing so, I’ve come to understand the sentiment expressed by novelist Marilynne Robinson: to gaze into the eyes of a newborn is the closest we come to seeing the face of God. 

A newborn baby is utterly dependent on parents and community, yet children are the greatest natural resource in the world. Each new life that enters the world represents boundless opportunities. Each child I’ve held and each student I’ve mentored gives me hope for the future. Through loving others’ children as if they were my own, a childless woman like me has rejoiced abundantly by encountering the image of God alive in others. 

What do we sacrifice when we tell young people today to define happiness through something lifeless: a car, a trip, a degree, an abundant bank account? In reality, what greater joy is there than to embrace the mystery of a new life? What greater attraction, what greater reason to live, and what greater motivation to serve than to raise the next generation?  

Happiness is not an achievement; it’s a gift. Children are a blessing. My closing message to the panel’s audience was to forget your smartphones, ambitions, and quibbles with your neighbors. Take the risk, open your heart, and the boundless love of a child will move you to tears.  

Image credit: licensed via Adobe Stock.