My Humble Opinion

Are ugly children less loved?

2005-05-04T09:24:00.000-04:00

Report: Parents more attentive to attractive kids
MSNBC
Updated: 12:33 p.m. ET May 3, 2005

Most parents would deny it, but Canadian researchers have found that
physical attractiveness affects how children are treated, according to a report
Tuesday in The New York Times.

Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton watched how
parents interacted with their children while shopping in supermarkets and found
that so-called ugly ones were more neglected and allowed to engage in
potentially dangerous behavior.

The team lead by Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the
Population Research Laboratory, followed more than 400 parents and their
2-to-5-year-old children around 14 Canadian grocery stores, noting whether the
adults strapped their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, the newspaper
reports.

Researchers also observed how often the child wandered more than 10 feet
away and whether the kids were allowed to engage in risky behaviors such as
standing up in the shopping cart.

The children's attractiveness was rated on a 10-point scale by the
research team.

READ MORE

Come on!I personally think its a load of crap. I mean, Children are beautiful regardless. Maybe the ones that recieved less attention were dressed poorly; had messy hair, or a dirty face, giving the appearence of unattractiveness. In that respect, they recieved less attention at the store, as well as before the store.

Maybe Mom or Dad just cant take care of a preschooler. Maybe the ones who can care for their kids spent time before going out the door to wash faces, comb hair, and put on nice clothing, giving the illusion that they were the better looking children.

Or maybe us parents really do treat our good looking kids better. NAH, I doubt it.

I get what they are saying, how often do we see some "homely" looking little boy wandering alone at a store, and causing a mess, or a disturbance, and you wonder where the boy's mother is? It happens, but I bet it happens more because mom just don't have a sweet ass clue what she's doing, the reason the boy looked homely in the first place!

OK, same mother, if she had a good looking kid she would have actually looked after him? I don't know about that one, I am leaning more on the 'she would have turned him ugly and let him wander before changing her ways because hes a good looking kid who will reproduce someday' side.

What do you think?

Fla. Won't Appeal Abortion for 13-Year-Old

2005-05-03T13:28:00.000-04:00

Fla. Won't Appeal Abortion for 13-Year-Old
(05-03) 09:10 PDT West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP) --
A judge ruled that a 13-year-old girl at the center of an abortion fight with the state may terminate her pregnancy, and Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the state will not appeal further.
Juvenile Judge Ronald Alvarez ruled Monday that the teen, who has
been in state custody for four years, would not be physically or emotionally
harmed by the procedure. Last week, Alvarez blocked the girl's abortion until a
psychological evaluation was completed.

"He ruled that she is competent, that she has made a decision and that she has a right to act on that decision," said Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the girl.
It was unclear Tuesday whether the girl, 14 weeks pregnant and known only as L.G. in court papers, had yet undergone an abortion. Calls to the girl's attorneys seeking an update were not immediately returned.

LINK

I am pleased with the ruling, she wanted to exercise her legal right to an abortion, and had the Florida Department of Children & Families step in the way, and tell her that because she was in their care, that the abortion would not happen, and they wanted her to carry the pregnancy to term. For the full story click here.

Was the judge right in allowing the abortion? Should Jed Bush Appeal in efforts to stop the procedure? Post your comments.

Youth pleads not guilty in baseball bat killing

2005-05-03T12:35:00.000-04:00

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A 13-year-old California boy pleaded not
guilty to murder charges Monday in the killing of a friend with a baseball bat
after a youth league game last month.

The boy is accused of hitting 15-year-old Jeremy Roarke in the knee and
head with an aluminum baseball bat on April 12.

The boy appeared at arraignment Monday in juvenile court in Sylmar,
California, to deny the allegations in the prosecutors' petition.

Under California law, children under 14 cannot be tried as
adults.

If found guilty, the boy could be held in a juvenile detention facility
until age 25 -- and Roarke's parents said Monday they want to see that maximum
penalty imposed.

The attack followed an apparent argument after a Pony League baseball
game in Palmdale, California, about 40 miles northeast of Los Angeles.

The suspect was described as a well-liked boy with no criminal
record.

Monday's hearing shed no new information on the circumstances
surrounding the slaying.

Witnesses said the suspect's team had just lost its first game of the
season, and he was getting in line at a snack bar when he and Roarke got into
some sort of scuffle.

Some witnesses said there was a dispute between the teens over
their place in line; others said Roarke teased the suspect over the loss.
LINK

Should a 13 year old boy be tried as an adult? Or is the slap-on-the-wrist go to juvey til he is 25 enough? Post your comments!

Evolution on trial in Kansas

2005-05-03T11:14:00.000-04:00

"TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) -- Evolution is going on trial in
Kansas.

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted
religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British
scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school
children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom style
hearings to begin Thursday in Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give
testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to
argue against teaching evolution.

Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded
on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are
part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over
government.

"I feel like I'm in a time warp here," said Topeka attorney Pedro
Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. "To debate
evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd
proposition." "

READ MORE

What is your take on this one folks? It sounds as though religion must control all! Here in PE, Canada, religion is no longer in the school system. The days of reciting the Lord's prayer before our school lessons are long over. Many people say to not believe in Evolution is to be an atheist. Many people think God needs to be in the classroom. Here in Canada we do not practice religion in the public school system, but learn about different religions, while still learning the facts and science.

I cut and pasted these from an Ontario Public School System page as an example...These are guidelines an Ontario court ruled pertaining to Religion in school. LINK

"The school may sponsor the study of religion, but may not sponsor the practice
of religion. The school may expose students to all religious views, but may not
impose any particular view. The function of the school is to educate about all
religions, not to convert to any one religion. The school's approach is
academic, not devotional. The school should study what all people believe, but should not teach a student what to believe. The school should strive for student awareness of all religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any one religion."