So What About the Children?
Soon we will all be too tired of Michael Jackson articles, videos, programs, etc. to be able to stomach yet another. If you’re already to that point skip past this one.
I don’t really care to speculate about MJ’s impact on pop music for better or worse. Pop music has done nothing but get worse for many decades now, so I don’t consider it a huge compliment to crown anyone as its King. Besides talent, money, and lots of drugs, Michael Jackson managed to have children without a mother. In fact, I read today that the court granting temporary guardianship to MJ’s mother has listed his third child’s maternity as “none”.
Not unknown but NONE. As in, there was no mother.
Now MJ is fascinating to fans and writers of SF and Horror, just because of his self-mutating appearance alone. Add to that his self-amusement park built to ensnare little boys and you’ve got a story stranger than fiction that gives most people the heebie-jeebies. Finish it off with the fact that the man remained untouchable from legal consequences and that makes it a monster story for all time.
So when does the law interfere when someone decides to create children as personal play things? We know children are born to be organ donors--an act of love on the part of desperate parents and yet...does that make it right? Do I want the law to be able to decide if anyone’s reasons for having children is good enough, valid enough? Ugh no, I don’t want that.
Back to Michael Jackson and the anonymous egg though. A woman can sign away her rights as a parent, which Debbie Rowe apparently did with the two older children. I accept that and I don’t think she should come forward now and claim custody of the children, which she may or may not do, according to whichever tabloid site you look at. Nor am I anxious to find and condemn the mother of Blanket, the third child. What I do want is that the women be acknowledged as human beings responsible for their decisions to enable a pedophile to have easy access to children.
What surprises me is how far behind the law remains when it comes to these issues. Just because we are capable of producing designer babies doesn’t mean we should be. We have legions dedicated to protecting unborn fetuses, but what about the children who are born for selfish exploitive reasons? Take Octo-mom...please. We all wring our hands about the insanity of having eight babies as a single mother of six challenged children, and we condemn the doctor who helped her do it. But she’s still got all the kids and lots of goodies to along with them, including her own television show.
As usual, I’m just posing the questions. The answers aren’t easy and won’t come quickly. But while we’re all quick to condemn, there seem to be no tools to seek solutions for the ultimate victims: the children.
I don’t really care to speculate about MJ’s impact on pop music for better or worse. Pop music has done nothing but get worse for many decades now, so I don’t consider it a huge compliment to crown anyone as its King. Besides talent, money, and lots of drugs, Michael Jackson managed to have children without a mother. In fact, I read today that the court granting temporary guardianship to MJ’s mother has listed his third child’s maternity as “none”.
Not unknown but NONE. As in, there was no mother.
Now MJ is fascinating to fans and writers of SF and Horror, just because of his self-mutating appearance alone. Add to that his self-amusement park built to ensnare little boys and you’ve got a story stranger than fiction that gives most people the heebie-jeebies. Finish it off with the fact that the man remained untouchable from legal consequences and that makes it a monster story for all time.
So when does the law interfere when someone decides to create children as personal play things? We know children are born to be organ donors--an act of love on the part of desperate parents and yet...does that make it right? Do I want the law to be able to decide if anyone’s reasons for having children is good enough, valid enough? Ugh no, I don’t want that.
Back to Michael Jackson and the anonymous egg though. A woman can sign away her rights as a parent, which Debbie Rowe apparently did with the two older children. I accept that and I don’t think she should come forward now and claim custody of the children, which she may or may not do, according to whichever tabloid site you look at. Nor am I anxious to find and condemn the mother of Blanket, the third child. What I do want is that the women be acknowledged as human beings responsible for their decisions to enable a pedophile to have easy access to children.
What surprises me is how far behind the law remains when it comes to these issues. Just because we are capable of producing designer babies doesn’t mean we should be. We have legions dedicated to protecting unborn fetuses, but what about the children who are born for selfish exploitive reasons? Take Octo-mom...please. We all wring our hands about the insanity of having eight babies as a single mother of six challenged children, and we condemn the doctor who helped her do it. But she’s still got all the kids and lots of goodies to along with them, including her own television show.
As usual, I’m just posing the questions. The answers aren’t easy and won’t come quickly. But while we’re all quick to condemn, there seem to be no tools to seek solutions for the ultimate victims: the children.