Archive for June, 2009

June 25, 2009

MICHAEL JACKSON IS DEAD

by MullOverThis

Some people are well-known enough to have world recognition by a letter, nickname, or merely initials. MJ, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop is said to have succumbed earlier this afternoon in L.A.

Reports say that MJ was rehearsing in L.A. for a comeback tour in London.

As when death hits any family, there is a great loss and deep feelings of grief. Let us remember the Jackson family in our prayers and well wishes. For those of us who are still alive and able to read this, where will you spend eternity?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609021.htm

June 24, 2009

66 Year Old Gives Birth

by MullOverThis

The oldest reported British woman to give birth, Elizabeth Adeney, is a brand new mom thanks to In Vitro fertilization. Of course, the new mom has not only the joy of her first child to look forward to, but also the criticisms of yick yackers who feel she is monsterously selfish for having a child at her “old” age.

Although I do not generally think that child-bearing is ideal at 66, again, I ask as I often do, “Who cares?” Adeney has only joined the ranks of an increasing number of senior citizens who raise babies that are their grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Her baby raising is purposed and intentional, not a result of premature death in the family, or some sort of parental neglect. People Adeney’s age get custody and are entrusted to raise children everyday, and do so heroically.

So who are her critics? Is it the same monsterously selfish people who advocate abortion for convenience? Or, the population of classless candidates-both male and female-who contribute to the “who’s my baby’s daddy” talk show conundrum. Thank God for DNA testing, or so many everyday people who live impulsive hedonistic lives would never know who fathered a child. Certainly, Adeney’s critics cannot be amongst the population of people with terminally ill diseases in advanced stages, such as AIDS, that knowingly bear children with slight chances they will probably not be around to raise them, and often bring them into this world infected (although babies can receive treatment to reverse HIV status). How about all of our babies born on drugs or to mothers who drink and smoke? The wonderful people who have children for complying with the status quo with a firm plan for nannies, boarding schools and plenty of photo ops in-between need not register any critques. Their time would be better spent scheduling an appointment to laugh with their own children. There are certainly too many people in this world that are blaring self-advertisements for irresponsible parents to make this woman a guinea pig.

The only real concern is whether this senior citizen is capable of providing a loving, safe, healthy, reliable home for a baby and in good enough health to do so. Adeney just may outlive some of the young everything-goes, to hell with any type of morality people and smile at this child’s college graduation. She just may give this child the kind of devotion, attention and guidance that will produce a good sound human being. At least we can hope. This of course, can only take place if the powers that be and the hipsters don’t cause the world to end before then.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7612856&page=1

MULLOVERTHIS.

June 23, 2009

A QUESTION OF PRIVACY IN ADOPTION LAWS

by MullOverThis

A woman who was raped and gave her daughter up for adoption thirty years ago is suing the state of New Jersey for allegedly assisting the adoptee in finding her. The thirty year old adopted daughter apparently went to her birth mother’s home, and has attempted to contact another birth sibling from her birth mother. The birth mother had been made aware of the adoptee’s request to communicate prior to the unsolicited home visit, and did not respond to the letter the State of New Jersey sent her apprising her of the same. For the full story, here’s the link to the article:

Every now and again, MULLOVERTHIS gets stumped. I had to think about this one for a few seconds, but only a few seconds. After mulling through the emotional components, this is a clear-cut case. The birth mother, if her story is correct, should get a million plus a few extra bucks. Adoption laws are SUPPOSED to work such that someone like the plaintiff can make the decision that she was prepared to live with, albeit thirty years ago. It is unjust to shift the rules now, because some lackadaisical state employees felt like doing whatever they wanted. Had the daughter found her through some ingenuity on her own, or with private people locaters, then we’d have a different story. This woman had a right to close the door to the rape, and the child that came from the rape, without having to face her at her front door thirty years later.

Once NJ pays, and pays dearly, they might impose some personal penalties to the employees that break the law and get caught up in an adoptee’s personal pursuits. Had this adoptee had a “need” that was life-threatening or considerably commensurate, she should have acquired a court order. The adoptee’s need does not outweigh the mother’s need to live in peace and privacy. This mother has absolutely no bond with the grown woman and should not have been jolted into re-visiting a part of her life that I’m sure she wished never happened.

As one who is not pro-life-but anti-murder and anti-disassociated human depravity through murdering pre-born children-this mother made a courageous decision and should teach the state a good old-fashioned lesson: Keep its word.

MULLOVERTHIS