Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Here's One For Solomon
Who should get baby Manji? That's the question facing India's Supreme Court as it tries to decide the fate of a baby girl born to a Japanese father and an Indian surrogate mother. This case reveals not only problems with practice of surrogacy but also what happens when law trumps common sense. For those of you who don't know, here's baby Manji's story.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.
India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.
An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.
This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.
Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
God Bless You, Mama
Today is a very special day. Today marks the second anniversary of my mother being cancer free.
Mama was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, only 18 months after my father died of the disease. My sister and I were panic stricken. Mama, though, was calm and displayed a remarkable level of confidence that she would be alright. She was...and is.
I don't have the best relationship with my mother. Often our interactions are difficult and fraught with tension. Good days are that way usually because we both choose not to go beyond the superficial in our conversation. Still, I love my mother dearly and I'm so grateful that she is still here. Every day that she wakes up is another chance that we can make our relationship better. So I happily and thankfully celebrate this special day, and prayerfully look forward to many more.
God bless you, Mama. I love you.
Mama was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, only 18 months after my father died of the disease. My sister and I were panic stricken. Mama, though, was calm and displayed a remarkable level of confidence that she would be alright. She was...and is.
I don't have the best relationship with my mother. Often our interactions are difficult and fraught with tension. Good days are that way usually because we both choose not to go beyond the superficial in our conversation. Still, I love my mother dearly and I'm so grateful that she is still here. Every day that she wakes up is another chance that we can make our relationship better. So I happily and thankfully celebrate this special day, and prayerfully look forward to many more.
God bless you, Mama. I love you.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Straight Out Of "Home Alone"
I read this on Yahoo! News this morning.
In a mad dash to board a plane to Paris, an ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple forgot one of their five children at Ben Gurion airport. The child, a three-year-old girl, was found by airport personnel wandering around and crying for her mother. She was later flown to Paris, accompanied by airport staff, and reunited with her parents. The parents, whose names haven't been released, didn't know they were missing a child until they were informed in flight that their daughter had been found at Ben Gurion. They will be investigated for parental negligence when the family returns from their vacation.
Wow! I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the surface it's easy to accuse those parents of neglect. How could they possibly not know their little girl was not with the family? Then again, airports are big, crowded, busy places and when you're trying to shuffle five little ones plus luggage through them it's easy to see how children and parents could get separated. This is especially true if they are running late and rushing to make it to the plane, as this family was. So I can cut the parents some slack on losing sight of their child in the airport. What gets me is how they didn't notice the three-year-old was missing once they got on the plane.
Airplanes, in sharp contrast to airports, are small, contained spaces where it should be fairly easy to do a head count. Why didn't the parents do such a head count? That's the first thing I would've done. What did they do to make sure each child was accounted for? Who did they think had their daughter, since she obviously wasn't with them? Were they depending on one of the older kids to look after the three-year-old? And if so, why didn't that child tell the parents that his/her little sister was missing? Was the older child scared of the parents? These are the questions that keep running through my mind.
I don't want to condemn these parents. It's not like they left their child in a hot car or some other life threatening place. And I understand how hard it can be to keep up with one child, let alone five. On the other hand, I also know that if you're supervising more than one child you must constantly count, count, count! Doing head counts and name checks, where each child says "Here!" when his name is called, is crucial to prevent losing a child or discovering early that a child has wandered off. I learned that trick from working in day care and I will always follow it because it works. This family should've tried it.
In the end I suppose we should just be thankful that the little Ben Gurion Girl was found unharmed and safely reunited with her family. I hope Israeli authorities won't be too hard on her parents. Everyone involved has, I'm sure, been through enough trauma.
Home Alone, indeed.
In a mad dash to board a plane to Paris, an ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple forgot one of their five children at Ben Gurion airport. The child, a three-year-old girl, was found by airport personnel wandering around and crying for her mother. She was later flown to Paris, accompanied by airport staff, and reunited with her parents. The parents, whose names haven't been released, didn't know they were missing a child until they were informed in flight that their daughter had been found at Ben Gurion. They will be investigated for parental negligence when the family returns from their vacation.
Wow! I'm not quite sure what to make of this. On the surface it's easy to accuse those parents of neglect. How could they possibly not know their little girl was not with the family? Then again, airports are big, crowded, busy places and when you're trying to shuffle five little ones plus luggage through them it's easy to see how children and parents could get separated. This is especially true if they are running late and rushing to make it to the plane, as this family was. So I can cut the parents some slack on losing sight of their child in the airport. What gets me is how they didn't notice the three-year-old was missing once they got on the plane.
Airplanes, in sharp contrast to airports, are small, contained spaces where it should be fairly easy to do a head count. Why didn't the parents do such a head count? That's the first thing I would've done. What did they do to make sure each child was accounted for? Who did they think had their daughter, since she obviously wasn't with them? Were they depending on one of the older kids to look after the three-year-old? And if so, why didn't that child tell the parents that his/her little sister was missing? Was the older child scared of the parents? These are the questions that keep running through my mind.
I don't want to condemn these parents. It's not like they left their child in a hot car or some other life threatening place. And I understand how hard it can be to keep up with one child, let alone five. On the other hand, I also know that if you're supervising more than one child you must constantly count, count, count! Doing head counts and name checks, where each child says "Here!" when his name is called, is crucial to prevent losing a child or discovering early that a child has wandered off. I learned that trick from working in day care and I will always follow it because it works. This family should've tried it.
In the end I suppose we should just be thankful that the little Ben Gurion Girl was found unharmed and safely reunited with her family. I hope Israeli authorities won't be too hard on her parents. Everyone involved has, I'm sure, been through enough trauma.
Home Alone, indeed.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Universal Pre-K. Yes Or No?
It's part of Barack Obama's grand plan to change America. Universal pre-k. From what I understand, Obama plans to use federal money to make pre-kindergarten education available for all American children at no cost. Apparently, Obama doesn't plan to make it mandatory to send children to pre-k, just free and available for all parents who want it. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.
Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.
Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.
Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.
ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.
I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.
Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.
Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.
Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.
ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Real Problem With Gay Marriage
I got this from my blogging friend Roadie who got it from...well, I don't know where he got it from but this is great little post. Sometimes humor delivers the truth better than anything else does. Enjoy!
San Francisco City Hall
Morning at San Francisco City Hall
"Next"
"We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you're not gay you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we're not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert. Jane loves me and June. June loves Robert and Jane. And Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No. It's just that, well, the traditional idea of marrige is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return."
"That does it. I quit!"
See, I told you humor sometimes speaks the truth better than anything else can. Thanks Roadie!
San Francisco City Hall
Morning at San Francisco City Hall
"Next"
"We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you're not gay you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we're not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert. Jane loves me and June. June loves Robert and Jane. And Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No. It's just that, well, the traditional idea of marrige is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return."
"That does it. I quit!"
See, I told you humor sometimes speaks the truth better than anything else can. Thanks Roadie!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Congratulations! But...
I heard a few weeks ago that Michelle Duggar, mom to the famous Duggar clan, is pregnant again. This baby will be number eighteen--eighteen!--for Michelle and her husband Jim Bob. I waited a while to write on this subject because I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not against large families; in fact, I think we need more of them. It's just that I feel a little disappointed that Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar never adopted a child. Actually, the Duggars are just one example of what I consider to be a shortcoming among pro-life people, especially Christian pro-life people.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Happy Mothers' Day After All
Well, Mothers' Day turned out great after all. In fact, it was wonderful. I'm so happy because I didn't expect the day to go well.
Mother's Day actually got off to a bad start Thursday, when the cable tv I'd ordered for Mom for her gift was installed. The cable guy hadn't even left the house when Mom started complaining that the tv's picture wasn't clear. Now, my Mom had been whining for months about how bad the picture quality was on the tv in her bedroom. In fact, she could only get one channel and it was full of lines and snow. Instead of being grateful that she now had multiple line and snow free channels to choose from, she chose to find something wrong. I was hurt and pissed. I felt like cussing my Mom out and then ripping the cable from the wall and tossing it and the tv out the window. I didn't do that, of course. But I sure felt like it.
How could Mom be so ungrateful? That was the question I tearfully posed to my sister when I talked to her on Saturday. Thank God for big sisters! Sis told me not to worry. She said she'd talk to Mom and tell her that if she was that unhappy with cable she would have it taken out. She'd call Mom's bluff which would almost certainly shut her up. I felt better and actually started looking forward to Sunday. I'm glad I did.
When Mother's Day arrived I was in a good mood and it only got better. The weather was GORGEOUS. Mom loved the card I gave her. Sis came over and we took Mom to a place called Weston Gardens. We all had fun looking at the different plants, flowers, and sculptures there. There was also live harp music and lots of different types of herbal teas to try. All mothers got to get a free plant. Mom chose a begonia. We really had a great time and I can't wait to go back.
After the trip to Weston Gardens Mom, my uncle, and I went to the cemetary to put flowers on the graves of my grandparents, uncle, and Dad. I hadn't planned on going but I decided to go so I could spend time with my uncle. Mom had chosen some really pretty flowers for the graves and she arranged them quite well. Personally, I've moved past the need to visit my loved ones' graves and worry about how they look, but that's still important to Mom and it was sweet to see her taking such care to make the flowers look just right. When she was finished the graves looked great and I was happy I'd gone to the cemetary with Mom and Uncle.
Finally, Mom and I went out to eat at her favorite restaurant. We both enjoyed our meal and came home quite satisfied. Later, when Mom was in bed, she told me that she had enjoyed me on all the outings we'd had. I was really touched, and a little surprised, and I told Mom I had enjoyed her, too. And that was the truth.
Oh, and the cable tv? Sis did what she'd told me she would do. She called Mom's bluff and suddenly the picture was fine. Like I said, thank God for big sisters. And thank God for a truly happy Mother's Day.
Mother's Day actually got off to a bad start Thursday, when the cable tv I'd ordered for Mom for her gift was installed. The cable guy hadn't even left the house when Mom started complaining that the tv's picture wasn't clear. Now, my Mom had been whining for months about how bad the picture quality was on the tv in her bedroom. In fact, she could only get one channel and it was full of lines and snow. Instead of being grateful that she now had multiple line and snow free channels to choose from, she chose to find something wrong. I was hurt and pissed. I felt like cussing my Mom out and then ripping the cable from the wall and tossing it and the tv out the window. I didn't do that, of course. But I sure felt like it.
How could Mom be so ungrateful? That was the question I tearfully posed to my sister when I talked to her on Saturday. Thank God for big sisters! Sis told me not to worry. She said she'd talk to Mom and tell her that if she was that unhappy with cable she would have it taken out. She'd call Mom's bluff which would almost certainly shut her up. I felt better and actually started looking forward to Sunday. I'm glad I did.
When Mother's Day arrived I was in a good mood and it only got better. The weather was GORGEOUS. Mom loved the card I gave her. Sis came over and we took Mom to a place called Weston Gardens. We all had fun looking at the different plants, flowers, and sculptures there. There was also live harp music and lots of different types of herbal teas to try. All mothers got to get a free plant. Mom chose a begonia. We really had a great time and I can't wait to go back.
After the trip to Weston Gardens Mom, my uncle, and I went to the cemetary to put flowers on the graves of my grandparents, uncle, and Dad. I hadn't planned on going but I decided to go so I could spend time with my uncle. Mom had chosen some really pretty flowers for the graves and she arranged them quite well. Personally, I've moved past the need to visit my loved ones' graves and worry about how they look, but that's still important to Mom and it was sweet to see her taking such care to make the flowers look just right. When she was finished the graves looked great and I was happy I'd gone to the cemetary with Mom and Uncle.
Finally, Mom and I went out to eat at her favorite restaurant. We both enjoyed our meal and came home quite satisfied. Later, when Mom was in bed, she told me that she had enjoyed me on all the outings we'd had. I was really touched, and a little surprised, and I told Mom I had enjoyed her, too. And that was the truth.
Oh, and the cable tv? Sis did what she'd told me she would do. She called Mom's bluff and suddenly the picture was fine. Like I said, thank God for big sisters. And thank God for a truly happy Mother's Day.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
To Spank Or Not To Spank
Well, I guess it's time to bring up THAT issue.
While surging blogs on BlogExplosion several months ago I came across an anti-spanking blog. I briefly perused the site and was going to leave a comment when I saw that comments had been disabled by the author due to unpleasant remarks left by spanker who "tend to be an angry lot". I lost all interest in the blog right then and there. To accuse adults who spank children of being somehow abnormally angry is the kind of self-righteousness that I often see in anti-spankers.
As you've probably guessed I'm pro-spanking, i.e. I believe that parents who want to spank their children should be allowed to withtout judgement and definitely withou interfernce from the state. I even believe that day care workers should be allowed to spank children with parental permission. I know I just ticked off half the universe with that opinion. People, especially the anti-spankers, can get really emotional on this issue. So let me explain why I believe spanking is ok.
The main reason I'm pro-spanking is because I was spanked as a child and I turned out alright. No, I don't think that everything that happens to someone in childhood should be mindlessly accepted and repeated. I certainly believe in subjecting one's upbringing to a critical review. However, I was spanked as a child and I'm ok. As hard as it may be for the anti-spankers to believe I'm not a child abuser, domestic abuser, violent criminal or depressed psychotic in spite of the fact that my mother whipped my tush when I needed it. The idea that spanking teaches violence is one of the anti-spankers' favorite arguments against physical punishment but I've never seen that connection in real life.
Sure, there are murderers and other violent criminals who were spanked as kids but there are also countless hardworking, law-abiding, and decent people who are loving spouses and parents who were also spanked as kids. Somehow their existence doesn't register on the anti-spankers' radar screens. Let's be honest here. It takes a combination of many different influences to make someone an habitually violent person. To say that spanking is the decisive factor is a little too pat for me.
Part of the problem is that anti-spanking activists tend to conflate spanking with abuse. The blog mentioned above claimed it was dedicated to protecting children from "physical assault". That's a loaded statement. The term "assault" conjures up dire images in the minds of most people. The effort to equate those images with parents who pop their kids on the behind every once in a while is insulting, to say the least. But that's the dishonest tactic the anti-spankers use. Of course, many anti-spankers may sincerely believe that any physical punishment of children is physical assault, but that just makes me question their judgment.
Spanking isn't abuse; it's a method of discipline that children need to become productive, responsible adults. Children are not the equal of adults, a fact some anti-spankers tend to forget. Children are rightfully under the authority of adults because their understanding of life is not fully developed. Children don't know what is best for them but will do whatever is appealing regardless of the consequences. In fact, they lack the life experience to fully understand the concept of consequences, especially long term consequences. As the Bible so accurately puts it, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it from him." I think the extent to which someone believes this proverb determines whether he's pro or anti-spanking.
I don't believe that parents have to spank their children to raise them properly. I just believe that parents who do shouldn't be condemned for it. I feel that pro-spanking people--parents and non-parents alike--are by far the more tolerant side of this debate. They aren't the ones accusing people of being abusers and assaulters; they aren't the ones demanding that the state force their views on others through force of law.
If you don't want to spank your child then don't. If you believe that spanking is an effective tool in an overall discipline strategy then use it and don't sweat what the anti-spankers say. Fight all attempst to outlaw spanking; that's an egregious assault on parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. Yes, some people will make decisions for their kids that other people don't like but unless those decisions are abusive government--and activists of all kinds--has absolutely NO right to interfere. So I say spank if you feel it's right, don't if you don't, and live and let live. That's a lesson in tolerance children can really use.
While surging blogs on BlogExplosion several months ago I came across an anti-spanking blog. I briefly perused the site and was going to leave a comment when I saw that comments had been disabled by the author due to unpleasant remarks left by spanker who "tend to be an angry lot". I lost all interest in the blog right then and there. To accuse adults who spank children of being somehow abnormally angry is the kind of self-righteousness that I often see in anti-spankers.
As you've probably guessed I'm pro-spanking, i.e. I believe that parents who want to spank their children should be allowed to withtout judgement and definitely withou interfernce from the state. I even believe that day care workers should be allowed to spank children with parental permission. I know I just ticked off half the universe with that opinion. People, especially the anti-spankers, can get really emotional on this issue. So let me explain why I believe spanking is ok.
The main reason I'm pro-spanking is because I was spanked as a child and I turned out alright. No, I don't think that everything that happens to someone in childhood should be mindlessly accepted and repeated. I certainly believe in subjecting one's upbringing to a critical review. However, I was spanked as a child and I'm ok. As hard as it may be for the anti-spankers to believe I'm not a child abuser, domestic abuser, violent criminal or depressed psychotic in spite of the fact that my mother whipped my tush when I needed it. The idea that spanking teaches violence is one of the anti-spankers' favorite arguments against physical punishment but I've never seen that connection in real life.
Sure, there are murderers and other violent criminals who were spanked as kids but there are also countless hardworking, law-abiding, and decent people who are loving spouses and parents who were also spanked as kids. Somehow their existence doesn't register on the anti-spankers' radar screens. Let's be honest here. It takes a combination of many different influences to make someone an habitually violent person. To say that spanking is the decisive factor is a little too pat for me.
Part of the problem is that anti-spanking activists tend to conflate spanking with abuse. The blog mentioned above claimed it was dedicated to protecting children from "physical assault". That's a loaded statement. The term "assault" conjures up dire images in the minds of most people. The effort to equate those images with parents who pop their kids on the behind every once in a while is insulting, to say the least. But that's the dishonest tactic the anti-spankers use. Of course, many anti-spankers may sincerely believe that any physical punishment of children is physical assault, but that just makes me question their judgment.
Spanking isn't abuse; it's a method of discipline that children need to become productive, responsible adults. Children are not the equal of adults, a fact some anti-spankers tend to forget. Children are rightfully under the authority of adults because their understanding of life is not fully developed. Children don't know what is best for them but will do whatever is appealing regardless of the consequences. In fact, they lack the life experience to fully understand the concept of consequences, especially long term consequences. As the Bible so accurately puts it, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it from him." I think the extent to which someone believes this proverb determines whether he's pro or anti-spanking.
I don't believe that parents have to spank their children to raise them properly. I just believe that parents who do shouldn't be condemned for it. I feel that pro-spanking people--parents and non-parents alike--are by far the more tolerant side of this debate. They aren't the ones accusing people of being abusers and assaulters; they aren't the ones demanding that the state force their views on others through force of law.
If you don't want to spank your child then don't. If you believe that spanking is an effective tool in an overall discipline strategy then use it and don't sweat what the anti-spankers say. Fight all attempst to outlaw spanking; that's an egregious assault on parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. Yes, some people will make decisions for their kids that other people don't like but unless those decisions are abusive government--and activists of all kinds--has absolutely NO right to interfere. So I say spank if you feel it's right, don't if you don't, and live and let live. That's a lesson in tolerance children can really use.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Injustice In The Lone Star State
I'm beginning to believe I'm the only person in America who has a problem with the ongoing crackdown on that polygamist sect in Texas. I want to make it clear that I oppose any abuse of children and I'm not defending this sect's beliefs or marital practices. However, I feel the state of Texas has committed a grave injustice by removing over 400 sect children from their parents.
As you know this sect, called the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, practices plural marriage and, apparently, routinely marries underage girls to older men. It was a claim of spousal abuse from one such girl that triggered the removal of the group's children. Rather than deal with that one case in the normal fashion Texas authorities are using it as a pretext to shut down this sect. I strongly suspect it's our mainstream culture's visceral dislike of polygamy, and not concern about child abuse, that's really driving this crackdown. The FLDS parents are being punished for daring to live a lifestyle society doesn't like. That's what is most disturbing about this case.
Think about it. Why are Texas authorities so eager to terminate the parental rights of the FLDS parents? Because they're desperate to save the children from abuse? Not hardly. A few months ago a Texas mother threw her two sons off a freeway overpass then jumped herself. Fortunately they all survived, but the children had been in state custody at least once before this ordeal. If the state of Texas was so concerned about protecting children from abuse why did it give those two boys back to an abusive mother? Why have child protective services all over America given children back to unfit parents who later killed them? Government has a dismal record of protecting children from abuse.
But, you might say, the government had to do something with the FLDS. These people weren't just polygamists, they were child sexual abusers. Why, they gave underage girls in marriage to men old enough to be their grandfathers! That sounds horrible I know, but just what is it that people don't like about these May-December marriages? It certainly isn't the sex part. For all the sanctimonious outrage at the FLDS's marital/sexual practices the truth is our mainstream culture loves underage sex. Our popular entertainment is saturated with it; our schools aid and abet it.
For example, virtually every teen horror flick of the last 30 years has included sexual intercourse between the teen characters. Popular teen tv shows are also full of underage sexual activity. Music constantly pumps pro-promiscuity messages into the hearts and minds of our kids. And the original version of The Vagina Monologues, a very popular feminist play, positively portrayed the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a grown woman.
Public schools continue the sexual evangelizing of our kids. Most teach an amoral sexual ethic where anything goes so long as you don't get pregnant or get a disease. Last year a Maine public school began dispensing contraceptives to 11-year-olds without parental knowledge let alone consent. No provision was included in the policy to ascertain the age of the preteens' sexual partners. Other schools were reported to be considering the same policy. All to keep the kiddies safe, they claimed. Of course, such policies make a mockery out of age of consent laws and loudly proclaimed committments to childhood innocence. Yes, we mainstreamers love kiddie sex even as we stand in pious condemnation of those child marrying polygamists.
If I had a daughter I wouldn't marry her to an older man, but is that really the worst thing that could happen to her? And if polygamy is so awful why isn't the state of Texas investigating it in the Muslim community? Why isn't the state of Texas investigating honor killing, where girls are murdered for "shaming" their families? Two young Muslim sisters were victims of an apparent honor killing back in January. Texas authorities didn't respond by taking other Muslim girls from their families on the grounds that they, too, might be killed. Yet the mere potential for abuse--abuse, not murder--was deemed justifiable grounds to snatch hundreds of Mormon kids from their parents.
I smell a rat. Something is really, really wrong here. The removal of the FLDS kids was a virtual kidnapping by the state of Texas. If it is allowed to stand it will bode ill for all families whose lifestyles are remotely unconventional. Families whose beliefs strongly contradict the prevailing secular, PC orthodoxy will be especially vulnerable. Homeschoolers in California recently got a preview of that.
I ask all people who believe in freedom, family autonomy and parental rights to pray that the FLDS parents get their children back. Yes, their beliefs may be starkly different from yours; you may even find them repulsive. But if the state can take those fundamentalists' kids, it can take yours. Whose to say when your lifestyle will be judged unacceptable. So I think you'd better pray for those "weird" Mormons because the family and children you save may be your own.
As you know this sect, called the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, practices plural marriage and, apparently, routinely marries underage girls to older men. It was a claim of spousal abuse from one such girl that triggered the removal of the group's children. Rather than deal with that one case in the normal fashion Texas authorities are using it as a pretext to shut down this sect. I strongly suspect it's our mainstream culture's visceral dislike of polygamy, and not concern about child abuse, that's really driving this crackdown. The FLDS parents are being punished for daring to live a lifestyle society doesn't like. That's what is most disturbing about this case.
Think about it. Why are Texas authorities so eager to terminate the parental rights of the FLDS parents? Because they're desperate to save the children from abuse? Not hardly. A few months ago a Texas mother threw her two sons off a freeway overpass then jumped herself. Fortunately they all survived, but the children had been in state custody at least once before this ordeal. If the state of Texas was so concerned about protecting children from abuse why did it give those two boys back to an abusive mother? Why have child protective services all over America given children back to unfit parents who later killed them? Government has a dismal record of protecting children from abuse.
But, you might say, the government had to do something with the FLDS. These people weren't just polygamists, they were child sexual abusers. Why, they gave underage girls in marriage to men old enough to be their grandfathers! That sounds horrible I know, but just what is it that people don't like about these May-December marriages? It certainly isn't the sex part. For all the sanctimonious outrage at the FLDS's marital/sexual practices the truth is our mainstream culture loves underage sex. Our popular entertainment is saturated with it; our schools aid and abet it.
For example, virtually every teen horror flick of the last 30 years has included sexual intercourse between the teen characters. Popular teen tv shows are also full of underage sexual activity. Music constantly pumps pro-promiscuity messages into the hearts and minds of our kids. And the original version of The Vagina Monologues, a very popular feminist play, positively portrayed the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a grown woman.
Public schools continue the sexual evangelizing of our kids. Most teach an amoral sexual ethic where anything goes so long as you don't get pregnant or get a disease. Last year a Maine public school began dispensing contraceptives to 11-year-olds without parental knowledge let alone consent. No provision was included in the policy to ascertain the age of the preteens' sexual partners. Other schools were reported to be considering the same policy. All to keep the kiddies safe, they claimed. Of course, such policies make a mockery out of age of consent laws and loudly proclaimed committments to childhood innocence. Yes, we mainstreamers love kiddie sex even as we stand in pious condemnation of those child marrying polygamists.
If I had a daughter I wouldn't marry her to an older man, but is that really the worst thing that could happen to her? And if polygamy is so awful why isn't the state of Texas investigating it in the Muslim community? Why isn't the state of Texas investigating honor killing, where girls are murdered for "shaming" their families? Two young Muslim sisters were victims of an apparent honor killing back in January. Texas authorities didn't respond by taking other Muslim girls from their families on the grounds that they, too, might be killed. Yet the mere potential for abuse--abuse, not murder--was deemed justifiable grounds to snatch hundreds of Mormon kids from their parents.
I smell a rat. Something is really, really wrong here. The removal of the FLDS kids was a virtual kidnapping by the state of Texas. If it is allowed to stand it will bode ill for all families whose lifestyles are remotely unconventional. Families whose beliefs strongly contradict the prevailing secular, PC orthodoxy will be especially vulnerable. Homeschoolers in California recently got a preview of that.
I ask all people who believe in freedom, family autonomy and parental rights to pray that the FLDS parents get their children back. Yes, their beliefs may be starkly different from yours; you may even find them repulsive. But if the state can take those fundamentalists' kids, it can take yours. Whose to say when your lifestyle will be judged unacceptable. So I think you'd better pray for those "weird" Mormons because the family and children you save may be your own.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Attack on Homeschooling
A couple of days ago a court in California issued a ruling that could end the majority of homeschooling taking place in that state. The Second District Court of Appeals (SDCA) ruled that parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their children and that education should be done only by credentialed teachers. How arrogant!
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Paternity Wars
Men should not have to pay child support for children who are not theirs. That sounds simple and fair enough, but it's not. All over America men are being forced to pay for kids they were deceived into believing were theirs. And that's not fair.
This issue first caught my attention several years ago when a rash of stories about non-fathers being forced to pay child support hit the media. One story that got a lot of air time centered on a man who didn't discover that one of his three sons wasn't his until after his divorce, yet he was ordered to pay support for that child along with the others. And then there was the man who not only wasn't the father of the girl he was ordered to pay for, but he didn't even know the mother. He just had the misfortune of having the same name as her ex-boyfriend. I was instantly struck by the injustice done to those men. Why should they or any men be forced by law to pay for children they didn't sire?
Supporters of this treacherous practice say the best interest of the child should overrule any concern about fairness to adults. They say that kids need support no matter what and they also point out that men do have a time period in which they can contest a claim of paternity. This is true but the time period is only 30 days long and when it's over there's little chance of a successful appeal. A man is stuck even if he never got the initial claim in the time frame allowed. That's what happened to a Florida man just last year.
Francisco Rodriguez was targeted for $10,000 in back child support, plus $305 in monthly payments, for a girl DNA testing proved wasn't his. The girl's mother, a former girlfriend of Rodriguez, testified that he didn't father her daughter and even requested that the child support payments be stopped. However, the state of Florida persisted in charging Rodriguez because he missed the deadline for contesting paternity. I don't know the final outcome for Francisco Rodriguez and his family but I pray it was just. If it wasn't Rodriguez is stuck paying money to another man's child while his own children go without. That is NOT fair!
How can we stop this insanity? Simple. First, women who commit paternity fraud must be prosecuted and made to pay back any money they received from their victims. Second, we must require all children to be given a paternity test at birth. This will let men know their true relationship to a child up front. Men who choose to assume responsibility for a child knowing they are not the father shouldn't be allowed to back out later. So post-natal paternity tests will protect both men and children. This isn't a perfect solution, though. Some women might opt for a clandestine abortion rather than risk their infidelity being exposed. As a prolife person that possibility weighs heavily on me but, in our imperfect world, I feel this trade off is necessary to achieve overall justice.
Feminist types will no doubt oppose my solutions. Their problem is with men, not with men who don't pay child support. They have a very vengeful mindset and believe that women defrauding or harming men is just payback for the injustices of male chauvinism. They won't say that in polite company, of course. No, their desire for revenge will be cloaked with a bogus concern for "the best interest of the child".
Well, the best interest of the child is to be loved and supported by its REAL father, or a man who freely assumes the role of father while knowing his non-paternal status. Surely the child's best interest aren't served when a fraud that's been perpetrated for years is exposed, causing upheaval in the lives of all involved. So we as a society must take paternity fraud for the serious crime that it is, punish it like we mean it, and prevent it when we can. That is in the best interest of everyone.
This issue first caught my attention several years ago when a rash of stories about non-fathers being forced to pay child support hit the media. One story that got a lot of air time centered on a man who didn't discover that one of his three sons wasn't his until after his divorce, yet he was ordered to pay support for that child along with the others. And then there was the man who not only wasn't the father of the girl he was ordered to pay for, but he didn't even know the mother. He just had the misfortune of having the same name as her ex-boyfriend. I was instantly struck by the injustice done to those men. Why should they or any men be forced by law to pay for children they didn't sire?
Supporters of this treacherous practice say the best interest of the child should overrule any concern about fairness to adults. They say that kids need support no matter what and they also point out that men do have a time period in which they can contest a claim of paternity. This is true but the time period is only 30 days long and when it's over there's little chance of a successful appeal. A man is stuck even if he never got the initial claim in the time frame allowed. That's what happened to a Florida man just last year.
Francisco Rodriguez was targeted for $10,000 in back child support, plus $305 in monthly payments, for a girl DNA testing proved wasn't his. The girl's mother, a former girlfriend of Rodriguez, testified that he didn't father her daughter and even requested that the child support payments be stopped. However, the state of Florida persisted in charging Rodriguez because he missed the deadline for contesting paternity. I don't know the final outcome for Francisco Rodriguez and his family but I pray it was just. If it wasn't Rodriguez is stuck paying money to another man's child while his own children go without. That is NOT fair!
How can we stop this insanity? Simple. First, women who commit paternity fraud must be prosecuted and made to pay back any money they received from their victims. Second, we must require all children to be given a paternity test at birth. This will let men know their true relationship to a child up front. Men who choose to assume responsibility for a child knowing they are not the father shouldn't be allowed to back out later. So post-natal paternity tests will protect both men and children. This isn't a perfect solution, though. Some women might opt for a clandestine abortion rather than risk their infidelity being exposed. As a prolife person that possibility weighs heavily on me but, in our imperfect world, I feel this trade off is necessary to achieve overall justice.
Feminist types will no doubt oppose my solutions. Their problem is with men, not with men who don't pay child support. They have a very vengeful mindset and believe that women defrauding or harming men is just payback for the injustices of male chauvinism. They won't say that in polite company, of course. No, their desire for revenge will be cloaked with a bogus concern for "the best interest of the child".
Well, the best interest of the child is to be loved and supported by its REAL father, or a man who freely assumes the role of father while knowing his non-paternal status. Surely the child's best interest aren't served when a fraud that's been perpetrated for years is exposed, causing upheaval in the lives of all involved. So we as a society must take paternity fraud for the serious crime that it is, punish it like we mean it, and prevent it when we can. That is in the best interest of everyone.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
In Defense Of Large Families
I believe it's high time that we in the West get over our love affair with infertility and start to once again appreciate and celebrate large families. I don't mean that everyone has to go out and have 10 kids. I DO mean that our culture needs to once again see children as blessings from God rather than as time consuming, figure destroying, money draining headaches, as it does now. I've been coming to this belief for several years but it crystallized in my mind several months ago when I read a disparaging article on the Duggar family of Arkansas, perhaps the most famous large--and I mean large!--family in the world.
The article, obviously written by an embittered liberal, moaned that the then 16 Duggar children were attention deprived, disparaged the family's Christian faith, and accused them of being homophobic. All because the Duggars dared to go against the "progressive" optimal family size. It never occurred to the author of that bigoted article that the Duggars and other large families may be doing the world some good.
Imagine seeing this bumper sticker on someone's car as you're driving down the street: Save the Earth! Stop socialized medicine! Now what, you may be asking, does socialized medicine and saving the earth have to do with defending large families? Well, "progressives" have been preaching for decades about the threat (supposed) overpopulation poses to the environment. These are the same people who also advocate for government welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. Yet the fewer children you have the fewer taxpayers you have. See the catch-22?
"Progressives" want zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the earth and its resources but they also want a nanny state, i.e. socialism, that can only survive with a Catholic birthrate, as author Mark Steyn put it. Many "progressives" who acknowledge the inconsistency tout immigration as the solution. But that still means increasing the population, at least in a given country or region. And if you must increase the population why not do it naturally rather than importing foreigners? After all, if those foreigners adopt "progressive" ideas they'll start having fewer babies, too. Then where will Western countries get the people they'll need to sustain their nanny states?
The only solution is to admit that we can't have it both ways. If we want fewer and fewer people in order to protect the environment we must be willling to forego the "free" state services provided by taxing workers and consumers, i.e. people. Hence the bumper sticker mentioned above. Of course, the vast majority of "progressives" will never agree to this. They'll continue to dogmatically insist on both ZPG and socialism. They'll continue to hysterically denounce large families like the Duggars even though they're providing the resource the "progressive's" socialist utopia needs most: children. But maybe those children, raised in self-reliant Christian families, will spell the end of the "progressives'" unsustainable dream and herald the coming of a saner world where both children and the earth are loved.
The article, obviously written by an embittered liberal, moaned that the then 16 Duggar children were attention deprived, disparaged the family's Christian faith, and accused them of being homophobic. All because the Duggars dared to go against the "progressive" optimal family size. It never occurred to the author of that bigoted article that the Duggars and other large families may be doing the world some good.
Imagine seeing this bumper sticker on someone's car as you're driving down the street: Save the Earth! Stop socialized medicine! Now what, you may be asking, does socialized medicine and saving the earth have to do with defending large families? Well, "progressives" have been preaching for decades about the threat (supposed) overpopulation poses to the environment. These are the same people who also advocate for government welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. Yet the fewer children you have the fewer taxpayers you have. See the catch-22?
"Progressives" want zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the earth and its resources but they also want a nanny state, i.e. socialism, that can only survive with a Catholic birthrate, as author Mark Steyn put it. Many "progressives" who acknowledge the inconsistency tout immigration as the solution. But that still means increasing the population, at least in a given country or region. And if you must increase the population why not do it naturally rather than importing foreigners? After all, if those foreigners adopt "progressive" ideas they'll start having fewer babies, too. Then where will Western countries get the people they'll need to sustain their nanny states?
The only solution is to admit that we can't have it both ways. If we want fewer and fewer people in order to protect the environment we must be willling to forego the "free" state services provided by taxing workers and consumers, i.e. people. Hence the bumper sticker mentioned above. Of course, the vast majority of "progressives" will never agree to this. They'll continue to dogmatically insist on both ZPG and socialism. They'll continue to hysterically denounce large families like the Duggars even though they're providing the resource the "progressive's" socialist utopia needs most: children. But maybe those children, raised in self-reliant Christian families, will spell the end of the "progressives'" unsustainable dream and herald the coming of a saner world where both children and the earth are loved.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wimps, Weaklings, And Wussies
Have you seen those nanny shows on tv? You know the ones, Nanny 911 (which I think has been cancelled) and Super Nanny. I find them a hoot. Every time I watch them I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent people let the whole country see that they're totally incompetent parents. I can't believe the amount of child spoiling going on in our society. There are parents out there who are total pushovers with their kids, parents who are even afraid of their own children. It's sickening.
Even before the nanny shows debuted there were plenty of baby whipped parents on tv. A few years ago there was a spate of "I'm Scared of my Child" episodes on Maury Povich's talk show. They were shocking. They showed kids as young as seven literally ruling the roost, hitting their parents to keep them in line, and throwing outrageous tantrums to get their way. But what was really disgusting were the parents, all mothers, crying helplessly and pleading with their monsters to behave. YOU DON'T ASK CHILDREN TO BEHAVE, YOU MAKE THEM!!! I didn't understand why those moms didn't get it. And, unfortunately, there was more.
Another Maury Povich show discussed obese children. There was a 4-year-old boy on the show who was extremely overweight, and guess what his parents said? If they tried to limit the amount of food the child ate he'd throw a tantrum, so they let the kid stuff himself. I was dumbfounded. Those parents were risking their son's health, even his life, because they didn't want to deal with his tantrums! And, sadly, they weren't the only parents doing that. The father of a 100lb 2-year-old let the girl eat a whole bag of hot dogs for lunch because, he claimed, he loved her too much to say no. So another child's health and life were put in jepodary by a "loving" parent. And the sad parade of parental incompetence didn't end with Maury's show.
On an old episode of the news show 20/20 a mother let her preschooler make a total ass of her. The family was in the car, ready to leave home for the day, when the child insisted she needed a stuffed animal on the ride to day care. The mom got out of the car, went back into the house, and got a toy. The child whined that it wasn't the right one, so the mom went and got another toy. That one wasn't right, either. The mom got yet another toy; it, too, wasn't right. Back and forth the mom went for what seemed like forever. It never occurred to this supposedly intelligent woman to tell her daughter "No!" and then let her scream all the way to day care. My mom, like most moms of her generation, would've had no problem doing that. But today's parents act like not giving in to their kids' every demand is a crime. How did we come to this?
I think the astronomical increase in two income families is largely to blame. Many working parents feel a great deal of guilt leaving their kids in substitute care. They try to assuage that guilt by spending "quality time" with their children, meaning the little darlings are horribly indulged so they'll like mom and dad. Showering their kids with everything they ask for, and even things they don't, helps working parents further justify their employment--they "have" to work so they can get so much for the kids. So parents indulge their children to assuage their guilt, thus making the kids ever more demanding, which leads to more indulging, this time to keep the kids quiet. It becomes a viscious cycle. But there's more.
Working parent guilt also makes many of today's parents uncomfortable about being the boss in their families. The collapse of traditional values in America has led to widespread disrespect for parental authority, even among parents. Many of them are indecently willing to give up huge chunks of their authority over their children in exchange for less responsibility for them. That responsibility is given to day care centers and schools. Combine this parental abdication with the obsession with children's self-esteem and "positive" discipline, and you have the perfect spoiled brat recipe.
How do we get out of this mess? Return to traditional values! As I stated above, parents of my mom's generation had no trouble telling their kids no. They and their children knew who was in charge (hint: it wasn't the kids). Today's parents need to get the same confidence in their authority. It's a vital prerequisite to teaching children character. If kids learn good character in childhood they'll be blessings to society as adults. It's the parents' job to make sure that happens. It's a daunting task. No wimps, weaklings, or wussies need apply!
Even before the nanny shows debuted there were plenty of baby whipped parents on tv. A few years ago there was a spate of "I'm Scared of my Child" episodes on Maury Povich's talk show. They were shocking. They showed kids as young as seven literally ruling the roost, hitting their parents to keep them in line, and throwing outrageous tantrums to get their way. But what was really disgusting were the parents, all mothers, crying helplessly and pleading with their monsters to behave. YOU DON'T ASK CHILDREN TO BEHAVE, YOU MAKE THEM!!! I didn't understand why those moms didn't get it. And, unfortunately, there was more.
Another Maury Povich show discussed obese children. There was a 4-year-old boy on the show who was extremely overweight, and guess what his parents said? If they tried to limit the amount of food the child ate he'd throw a tantrum, so they let the kid stuff himself. I was dumbfounded. Those parents were risking their son's health, even his life, because they didn't want to deal with his tantrums! And, sadly, they weren't the only parents doing that. The father of a 100lb 2-year-old let the girl eat a whole bag of hot dogs for lunch because, he claimed, he loved her too much to say no. So another child's health and life were put in jepodary by a "loving" parent. And the sad parade of parental incompetence didn't end with Maury's show.
On an old episode of the news show 20/20 a mother let her preschooler make a total ass of her. The family was in the car, ready to leave home for the day, when the child insisted she needed a stuffed animal on the ride to day care. The mom got out of the car, went back into the house, and got a toy. The child whined that it wasn't the right one, so the mom went and got another toy. That one wasn't right, either. The mom got yet another toy; it, too, wasn't right. Back and forth the mom went for what seemed like forever. It never occurred to this supposedly intelligent woman to tell her daughter "No!" and then let her scream all the way to day care. My mom, like most moms of her generation, would've had no problem doing that. But today's parents act like not giving in to their kids' every demand is a crime. How did we come to this?
I think the astronomical increase in two income families is largely to blame. Many working parents feel a great deal of guilt leaving their kids in substitute care. They try to assuage that guilt by spending "quality time" with their children, meaning the little darlings are horribly indulged so they'll like mom and dad. Showering their kids with everything they ask for, and even things they don't, helps working parents further justify their employment--they "have" to work so they can get so much for the kids. So parents indulge their children to assuage their guilt, thus making the kids ever more demanding, which leads to more indulging, this time to keep the kids quiet. It becomes a viscious cycle. But there's more.
Working parent guilt also makes many of today's parents uncomfortable about being the boss in their families. The collapse of traditional values in America has led to widespread disrespect for parental authority, even among parents. Many of them are indecently willing to give up huge chunks of their authority over their children in exchange for less responsibility for them. That responsibility is given to day care centers and schools. Combine this parental abdication with the obsession with children's self-esteem and "positive" discipline, and you have the perfect spoiled brat recipe.
How do we get out of this mess? Return to traditional values! As I stated above, parents of my mom's generation had no trouble telling their kids no. They and their children knew who was in charge (hint: it wasn't the kids). Today's parents need to get the same confidence in their authority. It's a vital prerequisite to teaching children character. If kids learn good character in childhood they'll be blessings to society as adults. It's the parents' job to make sure that happens. It's a daunting task. No wimps, weaklings, or wussies need apply!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Let's Legalize Polygamy
I support polygamy. I probably wouldn't practice it myself but I believe it should be legal for anyone who wishes to marry that way. There, I said it. This may seem like a strange thing to advocate on a blog dedicated to family values, but here me out.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Rest In Peace, Little Angels
I just read a news article on the 'net that makes me so mad I could kill. A father--I use that term very loosely--drowned his four babies to get revenge on his wife. Lam Luong, an Alabama shrimper, threw his children off a bridge after having an argument with his wife, Ngoc Phan. The article didn't say what the couple argued about but did mention that Luong had a cocaine problem.
I don't know what to say about this. I'm so sick and tired of filthy, cowardly, and downright evil "parents" murdering their own defenseless kids to solve their problems or strike back at each other. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be executed in the slowest, most painful way possible. And I mean that literally. To those of you who are squeamish about capital punishment, think of the terror the Luong children felt as they plunged 80 feet to their deaths. They were given the death penalty by their own father; he deserves no mercy.
I can't imagine what Ngoc Phan is going through right now. In one cruel instant her entire family was wiped out by the one person duty bound to protect them. Never again will Ngoc plan a birthday party, hear her children laughing, or feel their good night hugs. From now on the only time she'll see her babies is in photographs. As I said, I can't imagine what she's going through. If I were her I'd be out of my mind.
Lam Luong confessed to his crime and is facing four counts of capital murder. At least he didn't take the coward's way out and commit suicide the way so many of these killers do. But that should get him no mercy from the law. He should be executed immediately so he can stand before the Judge who really matters. The One who said it would be better to be thrown in the ocean with a milstone tied around your neck than harm one of His little ones. Lam Luong faces a justice more terrible than man's.
But his children are in a better place. They will never again know family strife, or crying, or pain. Goodbye Ryan, 3; Hannah, 2; Lindsey, 1 and Danny, 4 months. Rest in peace, little angels. I will cry for you.
I don't know what to say about this. I'm so sick and tired of filthy, cowardly, and downright evil "parents" murdering their own defenseless kids to solve their problems or strike back at each other. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be executed in the slowest, most painful way possible. And I mean that literally. To those of you who are squeamish about capital punishment, think of the terror the Luong children felt as they plunged 80 feet to their deaths. They were given the death penalty by their own father; he deserves no mercy.
I can't imagine what Ngoc Phan is going through right now. In one cruel instant her entire family was wiped out by the one person duty bound to protect them. Never again will Ngoc plan a birthday party, hear her children laughing, or feel their good night hugs. From now on the only time she'll see her babies is in photographs. As I said, I can't imagine what she's going through. If I were her I'd be out of my mind.
Lam Luong confessed to his crime and is facing four counts of capital murder. At least he didn't take the coward's way out and commit suicide the way so many of these killers do. But that should get him no mercy from the law. He should be executed immediately so he can stand before the Judge who really matters. The One who said it would be better to be thrown in the ocean with a milstone tied around your neck than harm one of His little ones. Lam Luong faces a justice more terrible than man's.
But his children are in a better place. They will never again know family strife, or crying, or pain. Goodbye Ryan, 3; Hannah, 2; Lindsey, 1 and Danny, 4 months. Rest in peace, little angels. I will cry for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
