A Child Is Not A Social Experiment

 A Canadian family has sparked furious debate about a "social experiment" that they are doing in order to force society to comply with their wish that gender not be a consideration.  Their four month old baby, Storm, is at the center of the controversy.  Storm is, in all likelihood, a boy.  No one, except immediate family members know, though, because they aren't telling.  It strikes me that they quite possibly wanted a girl and are not satisfied, so they are improvising. They intend to raise Storm as neither male or female.  If that's not a recipe for creating gender identity, then nothing is.  God created us as male and female, in every species.  Why, then, does this couple feel that there is something shameful about being a boy or a girl?  And why should Storm bear the weight of their bad decisions?  They want to use this child to try to educate the world.  Actually, I think they need educating.  Which bathroom is a child supposed to go to when they begin school or go to the park?  Perhaps they will home school in order to maintain the secret.  I think that doing this to a child and making the child the butt of jokes and the subject of endless gossip and intrigue is doing a grave disservice to the child.  What will the results of this experiment be?  Public ridicule, endless teasing, a lack of a sense of self-worth and belonging, and perhaps even a gender identity crisis. Do we need another Columbine to give us the results of this horrible social experiment?  I think not.  These parents need a reality check.  Let the child be a child, whatever gender.

 To view CNN's video on the subject, click the link below.

A Child Is Not A Social Experiment

Trends in Baby Names

Every year, the Social Security Administration publishes the list of most popular baby names.  This has particular interest to the families I work with.  I think we need to shake up the list a little.  For the past 12 years, Jacob has topped the list as the most popular name for boys.  Isabella has been the most popular girls' name for the past two years running.  I might have bought into that hype a little.  When I found and adopted my little dog this past year, I did name her "Bella".  For the first time since 1957, Elvis has left the building...um, the list.  It has remained on the top 100 list for 55 straight years, which is astounding.  I've never known an Elvis.  The top names in 2010 are as follows;

Girls                                                  Boys

1. Isabella                                          1. Jacob
2. Sophia                                           2. Ethan
3. Emma                                            3. Michael
4. Olivia                                            4. Jayden
5. Ava                                               5. William

Not surprisingly, the names moving up fastest on the lists came from reality shows about teen moms.  Maci and Bentley are moving up the list.  The most popular girl names all end in the letter "a", indicating a trend toward feminine names.  Remember a few years ago, there were many unisex names on both lists.  Jayden, Hayden, Aiden, and Braden, are all on the boys' list -- a bit trendy too.  Aiden makes the list three times with different spellings, so is more popular than it may seem. 

Baby names tend to be cyclical.  Michael and William are likely named after older relatives and they cycle through generations.  A current trend in names is to be different and yet popular.  That's a tough task.  That may be why Aiden has so many spellings.  I favor simple, easily spelled names that can't be shortened to nicknames.  Of course, the best intentions don't always go as planned.  I named my youngest son Dylan.  That seems simple enough and went well with the names of his siblings, Ryan and Erin.  Who knew everyone would try to spell it "Dillon", like Matt Dillon, the sheriff?   When I chose the names of my children, there weren't too many with their names around, but it seems that simultaneously everyone had the same idea.  My son, Ryan, had 5 other Ryans on his soccer team.  It's a good thing he has an easy last name.  With Erin, I thought of the Waltons and liked the Irish connection to match our Irish roots.  I had never known another girl named Erin.  But my daughter does.  A bunch of them.  Even our neighbor is Erin.  So, in trying to be unique and yet not saddle a child with a name that everyone will get wrong, requiring the child to continually correct it, it becomes a balancing act and a difficult one at that.

Studies show that names make a difference in the classroom.  Michaels or Deborahs  tend to be favored by teachers over Freds or Beulahs.  So, keep in mind when you are naming a child that there is more to it than just liking the name.  Consider spelling, pronounciation, and popularity.  That way, William and Ava won't have an uphill battle.

Choose Life

Bravo to Texas lawmakers who have approved legislation authorizing “choose life” license plates.  The plates will be sold to raise money to help pregnant mothers choose adoption over abortion.  While critics may say it puts lawmakers on one side of the argument, that has been the case for the other side for years.  I think anyone who is pro-choice should be glad that there is yet another choice and that choice may save a life.  Also in Texas, a bill requiring a woman seeking an abortion to view sonogram images of her fetus at least 24 hours prior to a planned abortion tentatively passed the state Senate in a vote of 21-10.  Informed consent is required in all surgeries, so why not abortion?  A woman should know exactly what she is aborting.  Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the country, doesn’t want her to see that her baby is not simply “pregnancy tissue” or “products of conception”.  A beating heart tells a different story.  Victims of rape and incest would not be required to view the sonogram if they opted not to.   Watch for Planned Parenthood to fight this bill with whatever means they can.  It can and will cut into their profits.

The Nebraska legislature is also taking some positive steps.  A bill sponsored by Sen. Beau McCoy would exclude abortion coverage from all private insurance policies sold in that state.  Those who wish to purchase abortion coverage would only be allowed to do so with an optional rider paid for solely by the insured.  Lawmakers in Kansas are moving to do the same thing.  It’s about time that taxpayers were taken off the hook for abortions that some of us don’t wish to fund.  Five states already prohibit abortion coverage in basic policies.  Those states are Missouri, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky.  The Hippocratic oath that doctors take requires them to swear that they will “do no harm”.  In the original Hippocratic oath, doctors were required to swear that “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion”.   It seems that some don’t take their oath very seriously, so legislation may be the only way to protect the unborn.