“What do you think the consequences should be for a woman who harms her unborn baby by drinking alcohol?”
That is the question a friend from high school recently asked on Facebook. She and her husband adopted a little girl from Russia who suffers from several physical conditions because the birth mom drank alcohol while pregnant.
It’s common knowledge that when an expecting mom drinks alcohol, it greatly puts an unborn baby at risk. Granted, alcohol isn’t the only harmful threat for a child in regards to the pregnant mom’s wreckless behavior.
What about drugs? What about carelessness in general? What consequences are there for those in our society whom we consider to be “unfit mothers?”
It’s not like it’s easy to always pinpoint the “birth defects” of a child on the mother’s bad decisions. After all, not every baby born from a good mother makes it into this world perfectly healthy.
But going back to the topic of pregnant mothers who make destructive decisions, what exactly can we consider to be “child abuse” in the womb? Or as I like to call it: in utero child abuse.
For me, though, I take this topic a level further:
If a mother deliberately harms her fetus with the intent to kill her child, maybe by using a coat hanger, or having someone repeatedly punch her stomach, or even if the mom herself shoots her own stomach with a gun, and the child dies in the womb, is that definitely considered murder?
I realize each state may have its laws regarding this situation, but I’m less concerned with man’s law and more interested to know how our society perceives this within our own moral scope.
When a mother intentionally terminates her pregnancy on her own in some unthinkable way I just named, is that definitely murder?
Or do we deem that as an illegimate version of an abortion?
We all know what the phrase means: an “illegitimate child” was born to parents who were not legally married.
The phrase originated from an English and Welsh law that said if the oldest son was a “illegitimate child” he could not inherit if the parents of his younger brother were married. Coincidentally, another particular word referring to illegitimate children has become an intermediate curse word over the years.
There are probably five good reasons you won’t find me using profanity.
One of them is because sometimes in order to call someone a profane name, even and especially jokingly, it puts me in a position to judge a person based on an insensitive stereotype or demographic to which I am indirectly validating.
By calling someone this particular modern day curse word I am referring to, it is insinuating that person’s parents were never married; that he was conceived outside of a committed, loving relationship; and therefore, he is not capable of treating people with respect and decency.
But really, which is worse: the phrase “illegitimate child” for tying the word “illegitimate” to the word “child,” or that particular inglorious curse word I keep referring to because it has gained the status of profanity in our culture?
I think the first is worse. Again, this is me being overly analytical and taking things too seriously (and deep) because that’s what I do as a writer, but it’s a crazy thought to consider any child being “illegitimate.” Right?
Sure, I totally realize we don’t literally mean a kid is illegitimate in a literal, overall sense. But it makes me wonder if we really do see certain children as illegitimate.
Maybe part of the reason I am so passionate about this concept that no child is illegitimate is the fact that, like Ron Paul, I am an avid pro-life supporter.
It’s easy to say that no child is illegitimate, but I’m not sure we are convinced about that. At least not until he or she passes through the birth canal.
Be on the look-out next month for No Such Thing as Illegitimate Children, Part 2.
Except for in the state of Nevada, prostitution is illegal in our country. It is against the law for a person to be paid for sex… unless that action is filmed, therefore making it hardcore pornography, which is perfectly legal in America as long as the “entertainment film” features consenting adults.
Why is prostitution illegal while hardcore pornography is not? It’s a lot easier to tax porn. Yes, money is the difference between a “legal” or “illegal” status.
Plus, we as a Christianized nation can’t allow for legalized prostitution; it would be like giving our approval.
I, for one, morally oppose both pornography and prostitution, but I recognize the fact that it’s impossible to outlaw pornography; because after all, what exactly constitutes as pornography?
Does it have to be explicit nudity? How about Michelangelo’s famous statue, David? You can’t censor classic art.
What about a large number of Beyonce’s music videos, featuring gyrating females wearing little clothing in the name of feminism?
What about that? Where could the line on pornography ever be drawn?
It can’t. So we tax it. Does that make it right? (Or does that make it even worse?)
But what politician would ever be practical and honest enough to acknowledge such a double standard which is based on tax revenue? Ron Paul.
He doesn’t necessarily want to legalize prostitution, he wants to leave it up to each state to decide, as he believes that is how our American Constitution was written.
Ron Paul doesn’t care about modern-day social expectations of what a man running for President should be like. If anything, that’s his downfall- he’s a politician who’s not political, in the negative sense of the word.
Instead, he is a man who has voted consistently throughout the decades. He stands for what he believes; no matter what. He has been married to his wife since 1957, around the time my parents were born. He sticks to his guns; no secret mistresses to be discovered with this guy.
As for me, I am a 30 year-old dad who doesn’t care at all about the word “Republican” or “Democrat.” I would like to say I don’t care about politics, but that’s not true because I care about social justice, as well as running our nation’s economy like a legitimate business.
Last week when 29 year-old pop star Kelly Clarkson publicly endorsed Ron Paul on Twitter, her record sales spiked 442% during a 24 hour period. What does that say about “our generation?” We get Ron Paul. We value his stubborn and (un)reasonable approach to political issues.
We could be the first generation to vote in a President who finally ends the expensive and ridiculous federal “War on Drugs,” where a man who is caught with possession of marijuana can be sent to prison for a decade while a child molester serves a shorter term.
Bless Ron Paul for calling our government out on so many of its asinine policies. No matter how he runs, whether as the official Republican candidate, or as an independent, I’m voting for Ron Paul. Even if I have to “write in” his vote.
Image credit for top photo: Gage Skidmore.
Thanks to Wikipedia, I am able to point out some of the major ideas that Ron Paul supports:
Paul calls himself “strongly pro-life”, ”an unshakable foe of abortion”, and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level”. He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get “the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.”
Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: “In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty.”
Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement in and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.
He is an outspoken proponent for increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates and numerous election law reforms which he believes would allow more voter control. Referring to the federal government, Ron Paul has also stated that “The government shouldn’t be in the medical business.” He is also opposed to federal government flu inoculation programs.
As a “daddy blogger” who sketches out writing topics on a nearly hourly basis, I am constantly trying to predict which topics are not only interesting enough to me, but also the ones that will resonate with the people I don’t even know.
Since my daddy blog, dad from day one, was picked up by Parents.com in May 2011 and rebooted as The Dadabase, I have been keeping a close eye on which posts became the most popular.
Ultimately, I am always “taking requests” based on what topics people tend to enjoy reading about.
Specifically, I know now that any time I mention a TV show title or the word “vegetarian” or I do some kind of countdown or list, more people are likely to read. But what else attracts readers here? Let’s find out right now, together.
#1 The Half Abortion: Only Keeping One Twin- No matter how passionate your stance on abortion, there’s definitely something unnerving about finding out you are a twin, but that your sibling was selectively aborted while you were chosen to survive.
#3 Positively Communicating to My Seven Month Old Son- I realized my ability to truly polarize an audience when I suggested it’s uncool to jokingly offer to give your kids away to strangers. There is a 100% chance you’ll either totally love or hate this one- no in between.
#6 The Positive Re-branding of Fatherhood- Sure, the sitcoms of the Nineties will always hold a special place in my heart; especially thanks to their enchanting theme songs. However, there was a major downside to them- the way most of them portrayed fathers.
#7 6 Things This Dad Got Wrong During Pregnancy- Despite the fact that’s it’s sort of my job to act like I know what I’m talking about as a writer, I’m often wrong. In fact, here’s looking back at 6 particular times I missed it.
#10 Little Boys Live in Their Own Little World- To be perfectly honest, I’m not exactly sure why this one made it to the Top 10; unless it’s because people get to see me back in 1991, wearing neon green suspenders? Probably not.
Tune in a year from now when I review the Top 10 of 2012. No, wait- actually, come back before that, like tomorrow.
Despite being 33 minutes long, “180″ reached over one million views in less than its first month on YouTube. The extremely engaging video consists of a Jewish man asking people on the street whether or not they would have killed Adolf Hitler if they had the chance. Then he follows up by asking if they would have killed Hitler’s mother while she was pregnant with him.
Eventually the people are asked to finish the sentence, “It’s okay to kill a baby when…”.
“180″ shares the interesting comparison that over 11 million people (not just Jews, but also homosexuals and children with Downs Syndrome) were killed under Hitler’s direction, while over 53 million babies have been aborted since abortion was made legal in the United States back in 1973.
Back in August, I published my most controversial (and 2nd most popular) Dadabase post to date, entitled “The Half Abortion: Only Keeping One Twin.” Since then, it has received comments on a nearly daily basis. Why? It asks some deep, yet relevant questions.
We all like to think of ourselves as good people; that if there is a Heaven, we will be good enough to make the cut. By asking these deep, difficult, and controversial questions, it makes it easier to decipher the differences between “good” and “evil.” If Hitler is the obvious worst person who ever lived, then who’s with him?
Is it legitimate to compare the Holocaust to legalized abortion in America?
I am very curious to hear your thoughts on this. Of course, it will be pretty hard to take your comment seriously if you haven’t actually watched the entire video. So now I invite you to go deep into some serious stuff here with me today.
In 33 minutes, leave a comment to let me know your thoughts.
*Warning: Video contains some brief, disturbing images.