~
We went to Kaiser yesterday for our ultrasound of soon-to-be child number 3. They wanted to look at all these crazy things like stomach and brain and heart and umbilical cord to make sure everything was in working order. Since I was practice for a new technician, I didn't get to watch much of the procedure, but the Spozo got to and would make a comment every once in a while to let me feel included.
"It's got 2 sides to the brain!"
"It's bicycle kicking right now!"
"Seems to have all 10 fingers!"
I kept peppering the technicians with questions about what they were measuring and why. I don't remember much of anything except for this tidbit: Most umbilical cords have three blood vessels, but it is perfectly OK if they only have two. Ours had three. So there's really nothing interesting to report because everything was normal (Thank Heavens!).
Finally they get around to the reason I'm there: finding out the gender.
Now, I've been thinking of this baby as a boy and expecting it to be a boy. I'm so assured that it's a boy that the Spozo even thinks it is a boy (even though he'd like another girl to cuddle and protect). I get a chance to look at the screen and see my baby (which is always emotional for me to realize that there's this little independent person moving around inside me, and even though I feel some movement, there's a lot more going on than I can tell). They start searching around to find the key indicators of gender and I'm pretty sure I don't see any exterior plumbing. And then they find the 3 dots. Which means, yes, we're having another girl. One who likes to have one hand on her ear and the other hand across the body and tucked under her chin. One who is very stubborn about showing her spine to the ultrasound technicians.
So now here's our problem: We had a boy's name all picked out and settled. Now we are searching for a girl's name that seems to fit. Any suggestions?
~
29 October 2008
27 October 2008
Why Prop 8 irks me
~
Or, in other words, why Proposition 8 shouldn't be on our ballots.
The reason that Prop 8 is on my ballot next week is because a handful of judges decided that they knew what was better for the people of California than the people of California did. Only 8 years ago, the majority of California citizens voted to decide that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. But in March of this year, judges ruled that this definition was unconstitutional.
Deciding what marriage means in California should not be left to the hands of an elite few. This is a decision that the people of California as a whole should get to decide. And they will get to - now. But it happened in the opposite way that it should have. That's how democracy works - the people decide when things change (even if they're wrong). If just the elite few get to decide what is good for society, it is usually considered a dictatorship.
The judicial elite do not have an especially great track record of predicting the societal impact of implementing their top-down changes to the traditional fabric of society. But with the benefit of hindsight, we can plainly see how the availability (and subsequent acceptability) of abortion (as birth control) has helped create a highly sexualized culture in which pre-marital sex is expected and accepted. Looking back over the past 30 years since the advent of no-fault divorce the lasting and harm and damage to the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of many children of those divorces (and their future relationships) is apparent. This is not to say that NO good has come of these "societal innovations," but that the NET results on society have been decidedly negative.
No one can say how changing the traditional definition of marriage will impact our society, but it would be naive to say that there would be NO impact. You cannot change a definition so fundamental that no need of a "definition" was even necessary (until recently) without fundamental changes to society. Not immediately perhaps, but they will happen.
To consider a few: If the new definition of marriage is "a relationship in which people love each other and are committed to each other," why limit it to just 2 people? Some experts think it would be better for the children for the parents to stay married and just bring in other partners as they come along instead of getting divorced each time they find someone new. After all, many religions provide for polygamy in their doctrines, and it is mostly only in the Western nations that polygamy is not recognized as a legitimate form of marriage.
Why couldn't consenting adults (be they first cousins, brother and sister, father and daughter, or grandfather and grandson) be allowed the "right" of marriage?
Yes, some of those examples may seem extreme, but once you change the definition of marriage to accommodate the feelings of some, what basis do you have for not changing it further?
~
Or, in other words, why Proposition 8 shouldn't be on our ballots.
The reason that Prop 8 is on my ballot next week is because a handful of judges decided that they knew what was better for the people of California than the people of California did. Only 8 years ago, the majority of California citizens voted to decide that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. But in March of this year, judges ruled that this definition was unconstitutional.
Deciding what marriage means in California should not be left to the hands of an elite few. This is a decision that the people of California as a whole should get to decide. And they will get to - now. But it happened in the opposite way that it should have. That's how democracy works - the people decide when things change (even if they're wrong). If just the elite few get to decide what is good for society, it is usually considered a dictatorship.
The judicial elite do not have an especially great track record of predicting the societal impact of implementing their top-down changes to the traditional fabric of society. But with the benefit of hindsight, we can plainly see how the availability (and subsequent acceptability) of abortion (as birth control) has helped create a highly sexualized culture in which pre-marital sex is expected and accepted. Looking back over the past 30 years since the advent of no-fault divorce the lasting and harm and damage to the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of many children of those divorces (and their future relationships) is apparent. This is not to say that NO good has come of these "societal innovations," but that the NET results on society have been decidedly negative.
No one can say how changing the traditional definition of marriage will impact our society, but it would be naive to say that there would be NO impact. You cannot change a definition so fundamental that no need of a "definition" was even necessary (until recently) without fundamental changes to society. Not immediately perhaps, but they will happen.
To consider a few: If the new definition of marriage is "a relationship in which people love each other and are committed to each other," why limit it to just 2 people? Some experts think it would be better for the children for the parents to stay married and just bring in other partners as they come along instead of getting divorced each time they find someone new. After all, many religions provide for polygamy in their doctrines, and it is mostly only in the Western nations that polygamy is not recognized as a legitimate form of marriage.
Why couldn't consenting adults (be they first cousins, brother and sister, father and daughter, or grandfather and grandson) be allowed the "right" of marriage?
Yes, some of those examples may seem extreme, but once you change the definition of marriage to accommodate the feelings of some, what basis do you have for not changing it further?
~
18 October 2008
Little Pitchers Have Big Ears
~
I never understood this line from the Little House series really meant (really, how many pitchers do you know that have ears, let alone big ones?), but I completely understand what they are trying convey.
The Sita really loves learning new songs. The surest way to get her to be quiet and settle down is to sing her a new song (or a song she hasn't memorized yet). Which would be why for her naptime everyday, first she picks two songs and then I pick a song she doesn't know so well before Quiet Time begins. This means that I'm quickly working my way through all the Primary songs I have memorized - she's got "A Child's Prayer" (the "Heavenly Father Song"!) and "Love is Spoken Here" ("Mommy Kneeling!") down pat. "Heavenly Father Loves Me" ("Rose Song!") and "I Love to See the Temple" ("Love the Temple!") are other favorites. "Teach Me to Walk in the Light" ("Walk in the Light!") is quickly being mastered.
I had to laugh the other day the Sita started singing along with the Dr. Laura theme song. Now, it's not like we listen every day and the Sita is usually napping during this time anyways, but the Sita proved she had heard it often enough. (Bolded are words the Sita actually sang)
I’m feelin’ good from my head to my shoes
Know where I’m goin’ and I know what to do
I tidied up my point of view
I got a new attitude
I’m in control, my worries are few
‘Cause I’ve got love like I never knew
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
I got a new attitude
At least there's nothing too incriminating in those lyrics. We learned our lesson with our firstborn.
I remember when we had to start censoring our conversations when the Dude was around because he was articulate enough to show that he understood what we were talking about. Or at least that he could parrot what we were talking about. It greatly decreased our "adult talking time" - especially because it meant we couldn't talk on our drives to visit family unless we wanted everyone at our destination to know exactly what we were talking about (or at least enough to make them very curious).
Beware of those little pitchers!
~
I never understood this line from the Little House series really meant (really, how many pitchers do you know that have ears, let alone big ones?), but I completely understand what they are trying convey.
The Sita really loves learning new songs. The surest way to get her to be quiet and settle down is to sing her a new song (or a song she hasn't memorized yet). Which would be why for her naptime everyday, first she picks two songs and then I pick a song she doesn't know so well before Quiet Time begins. This means that I'm quickly working my way through all the Primary songs I have memorized - she's got "A Child's Prayer" (the "Heavenly Father Song"!) and "Love is Spoken Here" ("Mommy Kneeling!") down pat. "Heavenly Father Loves Me" ("Rose Song!") and "I Love to See the Temple" ("Love the Temple!") are other favorites. "Teach Me to Walk in the Light" ("Walk in the Light!") is quickly being mastered.
I had to laugh the other day the Sita started singing along with the Dr. Laura theme song. Now, it's not like we listen every day and the Sita is usually napping during this time anyways, but the Sita proved she had heard it often enough. (Bolded are words the Sita actually sang)
I’m feelin’ good from my head to my shoes
Know where I’m goin’ and I know what to do
I tidied up my point of view
I got a new attitude
I’m in control, my worries are few
‘Cause I’ve got love like I never knew
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
I got a new attitude
At least there's nothing too incriminating in those lyrics. We learned our lesson with our firstborn.
I remember when we had to start censoring our conversations when the Dude was around because he was articulate enough to show that he understood what we were talking about. Or at least that he could parrot what we were talking about. It greatly decreased our "adult talking time" - especially because it meant we couldn't talk on our drives to visit family unless we wanted everyone at our destination to know exactly what we were talking about (or at least enough to make them very curious).
Beware of those little pitchers!
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)