As a general rule, I don’t like to travel, so I haven’t been through an airport in several years. And while I have flown with an infant before, this was different. When I flew with my son, he was only three months old, and he slept the whole way in this cool little bassinet they had attached to the bulkhead in front of me, my husband was with me, and it was a direct flight. This time, I was with a 14-month old, by myself with a layover in Atlanta. Talk about trial by fire. I looked up all the rules and made several phone calls. But there were several things I learned just by doing it. So if you are facing a plane flight with an infant anytime soon, here are some tips I wish I had known:

1. You can use a stroller in the airport, and leave it at the gate.

I knew ahead of time that I could check a stroller at the gate free of charge. But I didn’t do it, thinking that I wouldn’t see it again until I reached my final destination–and where I really wanted it was in the airport when I switched planes. Turns out, you do get it during the layover. As you go through the gate, there are crew members who whisk away things like strollers and wheelchairs while you are in the hallway leading from the gate to the plane. And they were right there waiting for the people in the corridor when we deboarded the plane. A word of caution though: if you will be going through a big airport on a tight schedule, it would be less convenient to hassle with the stroller, since you have to find an elevator, etc.

2. You can bring a bottle/cup with more than 4 ounces.

Security measures restrict the amount of fluids you can bring on a plane, but infant stuff is different. You can bring food and bottles or cups for your baby through security. Larger airports have a separate screening line for families. You just take it out of your bag and “declare” it. On the way there, I was worried about what I would do for my daughter as far as eating on the plane. On the way home, it was much easier!

3. You can bring a carry-on plus a diaper bag.

But on an airplane, less is more! I read that I could bring a diaper bag in addition to my carry on. It sounded great in theory. So on my way out to Ohio, I loaded the diaper bag up. But then I had to lug around a carry-on, a diaper bag backpack, plus a baby through the airport. And I didn’t use much of anything I brought with me. On the way home, I pared down. I chucked everything but the bare essentials:

• my wallet

• phone

• change of clothes for her

• socks for me

• three diapers

• some toys

• and dinner

–all in the backpack. It was so much easier!

4. Reserve your seats as soon as you book your flight.

For the way out, I booked my seats right away. But I was back by the bathroom and I wasn’t pleased about the location, so I decided to wait on booking seats for the return flight. I hoped maybe the gate agents could help me get closer to the front. BAD plan. I discovered on the way out that having a little elbow room (even if you’re over the wing or by the bathroom) was much more important than being close to the front. It’s not like you’re going to enjoy the view or the movie, anyway. On the way back, I got stuck in the middle of a row of three people, with a squirming, restless, napless 14-month old on my lap, for three hours. I couldn’t even get to the things in my carry-on. The people next to me were gracious, but it was still miserable, and there was nowhere to go.

5. Short layovers are good.

If I were flying with my husband, I would consider two or three hours perfect–not too short to be nervous about missing a connection if the first leg were delayed, but not so long that you start to get on each others’ nerves. But alone with a baby, I found my one-hour layover on the return flight ideal. I had enough time to comfortably get where I needed to go (even in huge Atlanta), and got to the gate as they were allowing the first people to board–and people with a baby get priority boarding. I didn’t have to worry about how to keep my daughter off the filthy airport floor for two hours. It was great!

If you plan a air travel with a baby anytime soon, I hope these discoveries are helpful!

A little boy possibly saved the life of his father and little brother in Nebraska on Sunday. Tustin Mains, a 6 year old boy, was riding in the back seat of his father’s Chevy Avalanche, next to his three year old brother, when he saw his dad “fall asleep” at the wheel. The sharp thinking Kindergartner quickly got out of his seat, crawled up to the front and climbed into his dad’s lap, where he was able to see out the windshield and reach the steering wheel.

His dad, Phillip Mains, had not actually fallen asleep, but was unconscious due to low blood sugar. Thankfully, Phillip’s foot had slipped from the accelerator, but the truck continued to roll while idling at about 15 miles per hour, witnesses say. When he slumped over on the way home from a restaurant, his older son managed to handle the vehicle for several blocks before being rescued.

Passersby recognized that something was wrong, and alerted the police. Several other cars drove behind and in front of Tustin with their emergency flashers on until being rescued by North Platte police officer Roger Freeze. Freeze made contact with Tustin, parked his patrol car and chased the truck on foot. After about a block, he caught up with it. With the doors locked, he was unable to enter the vehicle. But before losing consciousness, Phillip had rolled down the window. Although the boy was startled when Freeze appeared, Freeze managed to reach in and put the car in park, bringing the Avalanche to a stop.

When Tustin was driving, he was able to maneuver through town, and even turned around when he didn’t recognize his surroundings. Amazingly, all three passengers, the officer, and the vehicle are all unharmed. But Tustin admits he was pretty scared by the whole ordeal. Police Chief Martin Gutschenritter praised the boy, saying, “That is also a very special young man. He was able to take quick action when his dad was incapacitated, and we are very proud of him, too.”

Chief Gutschenritter said the department will officially recognize the valiant effort that Officer Freeze made. “Investigator Freeze’s quick action possibly averted tragedy. I will be issuing him a departmental citation for his quick, professional action on this case. Phillip Mains also heaped praise on the officer. “To chase down a moving vehicle and get it stopped the way he did took a lot of nerve and it weren’t for him, things could have turned out much worse.”

As a mom, I would be so proud to call Tustin my own. I have some pretty terrific kids, but I don’t know how they would react in such a frightening situation. I can’t say I would offer my son driving lessons. But this story does remind me how important it is to teach my kids how to think and react in an emergency. It also reinforces my concern that my son know where we live–to be able to get himself home if something happened. I also need to remember to thank my friend who is a police officer–and teach my kids to respect the police. They really put themselves on the line for us all every day.

In February, 13-year old Alfie Patten made headlines as Britain’s youngest father, having  conceived a child with his friend Chantelle Steadman, 15, when he was only 12. Problem is, he’s not the dad.

It wasn’t long after the story flooded the internet and tabloid papers that other boys came forward, suggested that they, too, could be the baby’s father because they had a sexual relationship with the girl at the same time she became pregnant. A publicist, Max Clifford, who represents Alfie and his family, said at the time, “It is inevitable there are going to be doubts, particularly with the number of boys who’ve come forward claiming to have had sex with Chantelle. There is one boy in particular who does seem to have a stronger resemblance to the child.”

That could have been Richard Goodsell, 16. The teen said he had a sexual relationship with Chantelle for three months. “I know I could be the father. Everyone thinks I am. My friends all tell me that baby has my eyes– even my mum thinks so.” Tyler Barker, 14, who lives down the street was not so cavalier. In fact, he was terrified. “I slept with Chantelle in her bed about nine months ago and I’m really worried I could be the father, he said.

Clearly, a paternity test was in order. A DNA test first confirmed that Patten was not the daddy. Subsequent tests revealed that the “winner” was Tyler Barker.

Considering all of the negative media stories about teen pregnancy, sexuality and innocence lost, you’d think that the boy and his own parents would be relieved. Leading politicians got on their soapboxes about the moral condition of modern society. But no. “Alfie is distraught and upset about everything.” Apparently, he and his mother both thought the other boys were lying. Chantelle did say at the time that Alfie was the only boy she had ever slept with. Alfie had no suspicion that she had not been faithful to him.

When Maisie Roxanne was born on February 9, 2009, Alfie said he didn’t know how he’d support the baby, but insisted he’d be a good dad. Since then, observers say he clearly adores the baby and is distressed that he is not her father.

At the time, I thought this story was sad. I guess I still do. The world descended on Alfie Patten who responded as maturely as a 13-year old can be expected to. He steps up, admits responsibility and prepares to do what he can to love and care for a little one. And now that it’s over, where does that leave him? And what about Tyler Barker. If he doesn’t want to be a dad, can they all just let Alfie fill the shoes? Considering Chantelle didn’t even own up to sleeping with these other boys, it seem like she must want Alfie to be the dad, too.

I hope there is a happy ending here. But I can’t see it yet.

Well, my baby girl is now 13 months old. She cruises around the furniture without a second thought. She pushes chairs around the dining room making “vroom” sounds like a little boy. She has even stood up for several seconds 0n a couple of occasions before she realized she wasn’t holding anything. But she will not walk. I really think she can, she just won’t.

It doesn’t help that I have several friends and acquaintances with babies who walked unusually early. For example, little Jesse was walking by himself at about 9 months. Big Connor was jogging across the room at 10 months. That’s about the same age that Kaylee was walking, and now, at just about 13 1/2 months, Kaylee dances. It’s so cute to see her up on her toes, twirling. And then I look over and see my precious daughter–so cute–just sitting there enjoying the show. When’s that girl going to get up and walk?!

If you read my post a couple months ago about wishing for teeth, then maybe you know I’m a little hyper about these things. I’m not worried that she won’t ever walk–I know she will. I know perfectly well that walking early or late has no more to do with intelligence than how early she had hair. And I’m not exactly comparing my daughter to the early walkers, because I know that those kids are unusual. I just want to see her take those wobbly little steps with a big, gorgeous (and toothy!) grin. I guess I’m ready for her to be a toddler.

My son was a couple weeks shy of his first birthday when he stepped out. And the whole family was there to see it, because it was Thanksgiving. I’m a little worried about my daughter’s big debut, because she and I are flying out of state in a few weeks for my niece’s high school graduation. What if she takes her first steps while we are away from Daddy? He’ll never forgive us…

The expert consensus seems to be that most babies take their first steps between 9-12 months, and they walk well just a couple months after that. Of course, they are all careful to say that many perfectly healthy kids don’t walk until they are 16 or 17 months old. That will drive me crazy if it’s true for her. A good friend of mine assured me that her twins didn’t walk until they were 16 months old. But they’re twins. I can easily write off that exception in development. I’ve also heard that the later babies walk, the more coordinated they are in the long run. I thought that sounded like a Old wives tale. Since I can’t find a confirmation for it, I’ll assume it’s not true.

However, Dr. Sears suggests that more easy-going babies walk later because they are more content with the way things are. My little girl is a very content baby, so maybe I should just hunker down and maybe even put the camera away for a couple months…

When did your baby walk? And have you ever heard that late walkers are more coordinated?

There is another hero named among us. Charles Schulze–not the famous cartoonist, but a previously unknown citizen from Florida–saved not one, but two, children on Saturday, in exchange for his own life.

Two boys, aged 12 and 9, were caught in a riptide at an unsupervised portion of Pompano Beach, Florida. Riptides are dangerous ocean currents that pull people quickly away from shore. Generally, to escape them you must swim to the side and not towards shore. But Schulze, aged 70, swam out to them and pulled both boys toward the beach, until he could go no further. At that point, concerned spectators on the beach dragged the young swimmers the rest of the way to safety.

But after making sure the boys were alright, the beach goers looked to the water to discover Schulze face-down in the surf. He was pulled to the sand where another man tried to give him CPR until lifeguards from a different portion of the beach arrived. He was then taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. He had drowned. The man who tried to rescue Schulze also swallowed or inhaled some sea water and was being treated for difficulty breathing. According to the Pompano Beach Fire Rescue spokeswoman Sandra King, it was unclear whether Schulze experienced an unrelated medical issue, or if he became overwhelmed by the tide himself.

Among the people watching from shore was Schulze’s girlfriend. I agree with her assessment of the situation. “He’s a hero…He saved the lives of these two boys.” Although it is sad to learn that this brave man died, I am so happy to see news of a person who did a good thing, who risked himself for people he didn’t even know. I wonder how many selfless things that Mr. Schulze did that never got published? And even though Mr. Schulze died–kudos to the other people on the beach who knew CPR and were willing to help.

This reminds me of a few important safety questions for parents:

• If you live near a body of water, do your children know how to swim?

• If you live near the ocean, do they know how to escape a riptide?

• When you go swimming, do you always swim at a supervised beach or pool?

• Are you certified in CPR?

I have been meaning to enroll my 12 year old son in the Red Cross babysitting course that would have him certified in infant CPR–a safety precaution that all of us moms and dads could benefit from.

On a positive note, in honor of Mr. Schulze, do you have a story to tell of an unnamed hero in our midst? Leave a comment that puts a positive spotlight on a good samaritan in your community.

Though it’s too early to produce long-term research, anecdotal evidence is linking the struggling economy with more abortions and vasectomies. Why? People simply can’t afford more kids right now.

Former president of the American Urological Association and practicing urologist Lawrence Ross said the number of men seeking vasectomies had remained consistent over the years–about 500,000 a year. But in the last six months or so, he has seen a 50% increase. His patients’ reasons make sense. If you’ve been thinking about it, and now you are worried about losing your job and insurance benefits–get it done while you still can.

Ross also says men who weren’t previously thinking of vasectomies have new motivation. “A lot of them are saying that we’ve decided to limit our family, the costs of education and raising kids is so high.”

Vasectomies may have remained at constant levels. But abortion rates definitely fluctuate. (The numbers of tubal ligations or other female sterilization procedures may be a better comparison. But such data was not compared.) In 2005, when the economy was great, abortion rates were down to their lowest numbers since it was legalized. Now, they are up again. One woman interviewed for the initial report said, “I felt I had to go through with the procedure because I cannot afford another child.” The 32-year old woman is a registered nurse, but she is single and feels her job is not secure.

The president of an abortion hotline says their phone has been “ringing off the hook.” She says some of the issues that low-income women have always cited as reasons for abortion–their husbands or boyfriends are unemployed, uninsured, or are afraid of losing their home–are now affecting middle-class women.

I do not personally support abortion. But I can absolutely see why some people would choose to limit their family size right now. I know that economics was part of the decision when my husband and I started talking about having another baby. This was a few years ago. And at the time, the nation’s economy was doing great. But my personal economy was more the issue. How would we make it financially if I took a year off? Of course, my husband said if you wait until you can afford kids, you’ll never have them. He’s right, of course. But I was still nervous. I’m glad we expanded our family when we did. I’m not sure I would have wanted to make that decision today.

What about you? Is an uncertain economy a factor in expanding (or limiting) your family size?

Last week, a not-so-funny hoax was played on a New Hampshire child. Someone apparently hijacked a wireless signal in Dover, logged on to Craigslist, and offered the 1 year old baby for sale or lease with an option to buy. Thankfully, police found the little girl safe and sound at home. And there aren’t any children at the location of the wireless signal. They are investigating the source of this practical “joke.” But it isn’t funny. And even joking like that is against the law.

So no one was laughing on Friday when a West Virginia woman offered to sell her son. Rebecca Sue Taylor, 19, had been talking to Leigh Burr about possibly acting as a surrogate mother for her. Then, Taylor came up with a better idea. She proposed that Burr simply buy her own 5-month old son for ten thousand dollars. After all, mom and baby hadn’t bonded very well, and mom did need money for a new apartment.

Taylor called Burr several times trying to convince her. When Burr didn’t bite, Taylor lowered her asking price to just five thousand. Burr went to the police, who investigated, and arrested Taylor three days later. The baby is now in foster care. No details about his father were given.

This makes me sick. Earlier this week we heard about the father of Slumdog Millionaire child star Rubina Ali offering his Oscar Child for “adoption” to the highest bidder. But that was in India. I could say, “Wow, it’s terrible their society promotes that kind of behavior. Or that their circumstances are so bad that they feel they need to do that.” But this is HERE in the United States. What’s worse, if convicted, this mom will get a MAXIMUM penalty of $2000 and five years in prison. That’s it. For trying to sell a human being.

I’m not surprised she hasn’t bonded with him. What kind of mom would so desperately try to get rid of her child? Not that I agree with east Indians selling kids, but at least they have an understandable motivation–crushing poverty. But here? There is poverty here, but it isn’t the same. And there is a legal, loving, moral way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy in the US: adoption. I said in a recent post that I don’t support abortion, but I would have believed that the procedure would prevent this kind of horrible thing, at least.

I hope this woman’s little boy gets help–fast–in a loving home. He could already be suffering from an attachment disorder. I can’t say what I want for his mother. It isn’t appropriate. I’ll try to change my heart and find a little sympathy and mercy. What do we do in these circumstances? Does anyone else agree that the penalty here is WAY to easy?

There’s a disturbing new trend among teenagers. They call it “sexting.” For example, a girl decides to take pornographic pictures of herself and send them to her boyfriend in a text message. Of course–none of your kids have ever done that. But nearly 1 in 5 other girls have. And they’re not just naked pictures. New York City high school senior Juli Sacontreras says kids send pictures of things like “People using drugs, of people being drunk, maybe doing some other illegal activities,” all the time.

Most of these incredibly stupid messages reach the intended recipient–a boyfriend or girlfriend–but others have gone “viral.” When Jesse Logan and her boyfriend broke up, he forwarded some of her nude photos to some girls in the school. They gave her a hard time about them–such a hard time, in fact, that she killed herself. She was just 18. Other teens have lost college scholarships over such immature decisions. Potential employers scan the net now to review–and weed out–young candidates.

Stefanie Garcia is another high school student in New York. “Girls in underwear, guys completely naked, muscle pictures, stuff like that,” she claims take place commonly. Many people heard about the unfortunate case of Actress Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical) who sent pictures of herself to her boyfriend. And you can guess what happened. The internet scandal nearly lost her a contract with Disney. In my opinion, Disney should have closed the deal. It would have sent a powerful message to all kids.

Because teenagers often have no concept of future consequences, some authorities took a bold step to crack down on the practice. Six 14- and 15-year old Pennsylvania teens were arrested on charges related to child pornography. The move has been controversial, of course. But how else to convince teenagers that this is such a foolish thing to do?

But lawmakers in Vermont decided that child porn charges are over-the-top. And the problem is so wide-spread…why not just make sexting legal? The state legislature is considering that move this week.

I’m not a legal scholar. And I know that some battles are not worth fighting. But I think this is one of the important ones. Exchanging explicit photos is irreversible. Nothing can be erased from the internet. This kind of thing can ruin a child’s life–even if she made the decision herself. Teenagers are too young, and their brains are literally not fully developed enough, to grasp the immense consequences of such an action. They need to be protected from themselves. But I don’t know if either extreme–child porn vs. legal status–is the answer.

As a teacher, I never had a discussion with my students specifically about sexting. But I have had many conversations about the kinds of things they say and post on MySpace. I don’t see many teens who have a real notion of the web being global and permanent. They just think that their friends will see and laugh about what they put out there. One girl even became pretty upset about how her parents had violated her privacy by reading her FaceBook page. When I told her there was no such thing as internet privacy–that the idea was an oxymoron–she disagreed.

Now, clearly, most kids aren’t whoring themselves on their cell phones or online. But posing nude for the camera–and then the world wide web–is pretty close. They’re just not getting paid for the pictures. And if you have a teenager, think about five of his or her friends. Which one is doing this?

I tend to think the best medicine for this is a reality check. That a real–and dangerous–child porn viewer can easily get those photos. That their colleges and bosses and even their grandparents can see these pictures forever. That their boyfriend today isn’t likely to even be a friend next year. That sexting is a really, really, REALLY bad idea.

What do you think should be done to stop this?

It’s every mother’s worst nightmare: losing a child.

On April 5, that’s what happened to Missy Evans when her son, Nikolas, died. He had been hit in a street fight about a week earlier in a town near Dallas, Texas.. But the punch knocked him to the ground, and Nikolas, 21, hit his head.

Thus ended Nikolas’s dreams of going to college, his love for filmmaking, old movies, music and politics. And alas, his untimely death dashed his hopes for having three sons. “Someone took that away from him,” said Evans, 42.

Now, his mother thinks she has found a solution to helping Nikolas’s dreams live on: she harvested his sperm.

Evans’s plan is to find a surrogate mother to carry her son’s offspring–whom he had already named–but she will raise them herself. “He would love me so much for doing this,” she said.

Experts in medical ethics–and a lot of other people–have raised an eyebrow or two. It’s not uncommon for parents who have lost a child to want to replace him or her with another baby of their own. This is just an unusual twist on that replacement child. Tom Mayo, the director of Southern Methodist University’s Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility, is concerned about the situation for the child. “That child’s biological father will be dead. The mother may be an egg donor, anonymous or gestational surrogate… This is a tough way for a kid to come into the world. As the details emerge and the child learns more about their origins, I just wonder what the impact will be on a replacement child.” One professor of philosophy and religion says it’s one thing to be certain he wanted children. It’s another thing entirely to assume he would want his mother to raise his children born from an unknown mother.

But Evans doesn’t care if other people disagree with her decision to harvest her dead son’s sperm. She believes it’s what Nikolas would have wanted. And, her ex-husband and other members of the family concurred.

The court agreed that she could do it. And no one officially opposed the plan. So Nikolas’s body was kept at a chilly 39.2 degrees until a urologist from Austin voluntarily collected the specimen, which she believed were mostly viable.

I was surprised to learn that this has been done many times before. According to Art Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, harvesting a dead father/brother/husband/boyfriend’s sperm has been done about a thousand times in the last ten years. And there aren’t really any laws about it–just ethics.

And since the decision has to be made so quickly, many of the people who collect the sperm don’t end up using it. They go through the grieving process and realize later that it isn’t a good idea. Right now, Missy Evans doesn’t have the plan worked out–but she is sure she won’t change her mind, even if it takes her last penny to go through with it.

I feel for Ms. Evans. I can’t imagine losing my son. But I would never, ever make such a decision for him. My initial reaction to this story was that she was really bizarre. But now I have relaxed that opinion a bit. I think she must be absolutely distraught and doesn’t know the best way to ensure her son’s legacy. I expect that Ms. Evans will change her mind after she has sorted through her feelings. What do you think?

If you like to celebrate the religious significance of Easter, try making Easter story cookies! A friend of mine gave me this recipe years ago to share with my now-12 year old son. More of a meringue than a cookie, this recipe is a fun and clever way to tell the Easter story with preschoolers. Make sure your kids are not too young because they may be a little frightened or frustrated! Use your best judgment.

You have to start them the night before and definitely need to read through the recipe before you begin. So grab your apron and a Bible, and have fun!

Easter Story Cookies

• 1cup whole pecans
• 1tsp vinegar
• 3 egg whites
• pinch salt
• cup sugar

Preheat the oven to 300 degrees. Lay wax paper over a cookie sheet.
*Explain that while you make the goodies, you are going to learn about the story of Jesus. Use whatever words fit your beliefs. Begin with the fact that he was arrested.

Put the pecans in a ziplock bag and give your child a wooden spoon. Beat the pecans until they are crushed.
*Explain that after Jesus was arrested, he got beat up by Roman soldiers.  Read John 19:1-3.

Let your child dip a finger into the vinegar to taste it.  Put the 1 tsp vinegar into a mixing bowl.
*After Jesus got beat up, he was hung on a cross because the soldiers wanted to kill him. When Jesus was thirsty on the cross, He was given vinegar to drink.

Read John 19:28-30.

Add egg whites to vinegar.
*Eggs represent life. Jesus gave his life to all the people of the world.  Read John 10:10-11.

Let your child dip a finger into the salt to taste it. Add a pinch of salt to the bowl.
*Tears are salty. When Jesus died, his followers were very sad becasue he was gone, but also because they had done bad things. Read Luke 23:27.

Ask your child if he wants to taste what is in the bowl. It isn’t very good. Add 1 cup sugar.
*The best–sweetest–part of the story of Jesus is that he died because he loves you. Read Psalm 34:8 and John 3:16.

Beat the meringue with a mixer on high speed for 12 to 15 minutes until the mixture forms stiff peaks.
*Ask your child what color the mixture is (white). If something is white, it is pure. God is pure. So are the people who choose to follow Jesus. Read Isaiah 1:18 and John 3:1-3.

Fold the crushed nuts into the egg mixture. Drop teaspoons of the meringue onto the prepared cookie sheet.
*The little mounds looks like the rocky tomb where they put Jesus’ body.  Read Matthew 27:57-60.

Put the cookie sheet in the oven, close the door and turn the oven OFF. Give your child a piece of tape and let her seal it shut.
*The tomb where they put Jesus was sealed shut. Read Matthew 27:65-66.

Go to bed!
*Is your child sad or frustrated to leave the cookies overnight? The people who loved Jesus were probably sad and frustrated, too. Read John 16:20 and 22.

On Easter morning, open the oven. Give your child a cookie and point out that the surface is cracked. What does she notice when she takes a bite? The cookies are empty! Just like the tomb where they put Jesus. Read Matthew 28:1-9.

On Sunday, my husband and I went outside to finish up some yard work. He worked on the courtyard gate while I planted the flowers and our 1 year old happily played in the dirt. We were laughing about how she tried to eat everything and even took pictures of her nasty, messy face.

And then Monday morning, she had a serious diaper blowout. She hadn’t had one of those since she started eating solid foods. Later that afternoon, she had another one. It was filled with watery diarrhea. Later in the evening … You get the idea. Tuesday morning came and she was still getting rid of whatever she ate.

That made me wonder just what she did eat. A quick check online told me that several things I have planted, and a few I was dreaming of growing, are not good choices for a garden with small children.

Of course, any of us might get a tummy ache from lunching in the flower bed. And there are many plants that can induce vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps and other digestive complaints. But due to the restraints of space, here is a list of common garden plants that can be deadly. They are in alphabetical order by their common names.

• Autumn crocus – (Not the popular spring bulb.) Every part of this cute little plant (which looks suspiciously like an onion) can lead to respiratory failure.

• Castor beans – The seeds, and to a much lesser extent the ornamental leaves, of this plant are the origin of the deadly poison ricin. Just two to four seeds can kill a child.

• Daphne – Just a few berries off of this pretty shrub can kill a child. The plant itself can also cause skin irritation.

• Delphinium and larkspur – All parts of these stately flowers are poisonous.

• Foxgloves – Every part of the foxglove is deadly, following a slow and irregular pulse and convulsions.

• Golden Chain – The bean-like capsules of this cold-climate flower cause excitability, staggering, convulsions, coma and death.

• Hyacinths and daffodils – Though the flowers themelves aren’t deadly, don’t led the kids dig up the bulbs. Eating them causes nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Rarely, they can be fatal.

• Lantana – This popular plant for warm climates can be lethal. Eating the green berries, which appear as the flowers fall, affect the lungs, kidneys, heart and nervous system.

• Mountain laurel – (Not bay laurel, which is a cooking herb.) Eating most parts of a mountain laurel can be fatal, following digestive problems, trouble breathing, and coma. Unfortunately, the very common and beautiful azaleas and rhododendrons are related, and should be off-limits for the garden with young children.

• Oleander – These beauties are hardy and easy to grow–and extremely poisonous. The milky, sticky sap affects the heart. A few unsuspecting campers have used the branches for hot dog or marshmallow skewers with unfortunate results.

• Privet – The leaves of this popular hedge can be a digestive irritant. But eating the berries can be fatal.

• Winter jasmine – Ingesting this vine causes digestive problems, but can also cause more serious nerve damage, and can be lethal.

• Yew – There are many types of Yew, and most of them are not generally fatal. But since every part of the plant except for the berries are toxic to children and pets, and because they CAN be lethal, they may be best avoided. If a child is going to have a reaction, it is often very sudden and violent.

Last week, the world learned that pop star Madonna was seeking to adopt a second child from the African nation of Malawi. On Thursday, Malawi’s Minister of Child Welfare supported Madonna, saying the adoption left one less mouth for the government to feed. On Friday, shortly after an unofficial report claimed the judge had privately told her she would be approved, her case was rejected by a Malawi judge, effectively terminating her appeal to adopt 3-year-old Chifundo “Mercy” James.

The 50-year-old singer did not appear in person in court. Her New York spokeswoman did not comment. But her lawyer filed notice that he would appeal the decision.

Reportedly, the refusal is based solely on a law that requires adoptive parents to have lived in the country for a year and a half. The judge said she would not bend the rules just because Madonna was rich and famous. And since she had “jetted into the country during the weekend just days prior to the hearing,” she could hardly be considered a resident. This addendum has led some to believe that Madonna’s celebrity status is actually the reason why she was rejected.

Others suppose it is because of her single parent status. The residency requirement was waived for her first adoption, when Madonna was married to Guy Ritchie. Today, Ritchie spoke kindly of Madonna, saying she was a great mum and that he was saddened by the court’s decision. “She is motivated only by being a caring parent who seeks to share some of the advantages and opportunities that her life has given her.”

For the second time, Madonna also drew sharp attacks from her own critics, as well as child welfare groups that generally look down on international adoptions. Their mantra is “the child is better off with relatives.” That is the typical course for African orphans. But since 14% of adults in Malawi have AIDS, there aren’t enough relatives to go around. Even healthy adults are often incapable of providing financially for children, many of whom end up on the streets.

When Madonna adopted now 3-year old David Banda, the criticism was a little more understandable. His father is alive but unable to care for him. He had never once visited the orphanage where David lived. At the time, the father supported the adoption, according to Madonna’s 2006 interview with the BBC.

Mercy James is different. Her mother, just 14 when she gave birth, died shortly after. Her father is not mentioned. Her grandmother is unable to care for her. The child’s maternal uncle consented to the adoption. Madonna promised to rescue the child from a life of “hardship and emotional trauma” that is inevitable for an orphan. Still, some people say that Mercy should stay in the country because of the possibility that distant relatives may appear and be able to take her in.

After the court decision was handed down, Madonna and her three children (3-year-old David, 8-year-old son Rocco, and 12-year-old daughter Lourdes) toured the location of a school she is building. Later, she threw a party at her hotel with traditional dancers, as well as government officials and the staff of Raising Malawi, Madonna’s charity. Earlier in the week, they visited David’s orphanage and David’s biological father.

When I grew up, I was plagued with a boy name. My name is Alexandra, but my friends have always called me Alex. I hated it. I was so ugly, my mom made me keep short hair, and my name just didn’t help. When I finally did outgrow the boy look, I still had trouble with my name. Once in middle school, a substitute teacher wrote me up for trying to sit in the “wrong” seat in class. (By the way, ‘Alex’ and it’s variants is a very popular girl’s name lately.)

But on the the other hand, I had four friends named Amy and three named Jennifer. What I always wanted for myself was a normal name–something that didn’t make me feel like a weirdo for having a boy’s name, but not such a popular name that I had to use my last initial all the time.

Needless to say, I wanted to be careful while choosing names for my children. When I was pregnant with my son in 1996, I lived in Korea. I was 23, married a year and a half, and none of my friends were having babies. So when my husband and I started talking about names, we really didn’t have any outside influences. I told him I had always liked the name Jacob for a boy. It flowed nicely together with our middle name choice, and so Jacob was our boy name. I had never personally known a soul named Jacob, but I thought it sounded nice. Classic, but not too old fashioned. We weren’t as sold on a girl’s name. We had two (Anja or Grace) and said if it was a girl, we’d just have to look at her and decide what fit. My best friend’s name was Tanja, but I certainly didn’t know an Anja or a Grace.

We had a boy. His name is Jacob. And like I said, I had never known anyone else with that name.

We returned to the States when he was just a few months old. Imagine my surprise when the first person I met with a baby the same age told me her son’s name was Jacob! (He had the same middle name, too!) We soon moved to a small town with a large Amish population. Many of their boys were named Jacob, but they always choose Biblical names, so I didn’t think about it. But then we moved again, and my son started Kindergarten. There were three Jacobs just in his class…

Turns out, Jacob was the 5th most popular boy name of the 1990s, and has been the #1 most popular name in the US since 1999 (according to the Social Security Administration). How could I have been so unlucky?

Then 11 years later, I became pregnant again. When our ultrasound revealed that the baby was a girl, we revisited the names. We had generally become enamored of Grace in the intervening 11 years. We told my mother-in-law. “Oh,” she exclaimed, “I don’t like names with one syllable. I’ll call her Gracie.”

Hmm. Nope. Couldn’t do Gracie. Besides, I know how to use the internet now and saw that Grace was fairly popular (it was not even on the radar back when I first thought of it in 1996). So the name conversation started again.

At church soon after that, a friend of mine who was due two weeks before me found out she was also having a girl. “Have you picked a name?” I asked. “Yes! Anya.” Different spelling; same name. I felt deflated. How could this happen? We went with a hybrid name. AnnaGrace. I still haven’t met anyone with that name, though I know a MaryRuth, JoLynn and a few other combos. A lady in the waiting room of my pediatrician’s office told me that combined names are very popular right now. Sigh.

There are sociologic implications behind how I could have picked the same names as millions of other women without having consulted them. The same childhood media influences, etc. But the bottom line is this: most of us want our babies to have names that do double duty. They fit in while standing out.

The easiest way to know if a name is “too” popular for you is to consult the internet. The Social Security Administration has compiled a handy list for every decade and recent individual years. There are several articles right here on BabiesOnline, too! But a word of caution: recent research supports the idea that boys with very unpopular names tend to have social problems. In that light, maybe Jacob isn’t so bad.

What about you? Do you like your name? How did you choose your baby’s name? And do you mind if it’s too popular?

Halle Berry is ready for another baby.

The 43-year old American actress, model and former beauty queen already has two children, a biological daughter Nahla Ariela (born March 16, 2008) and adopted daughter India (the biological child of her ex-husband, musician Eric Benét).

She had previously told the press that she’d like Nahla–whose name means honeybee in Arabic–to have a sibling right away. And in a recent conversation with Ellen DeGeneres on her TV show, she was asked about it. Berry confirmed “My mind says yes, but the rest isn’t up to me so we’ll see.”

Who is it up to? Her boyfriend, Canadian model Gabriel Aubry, also wants more babies. So when can we expect to see a few more Berry-Aubrys? He told In Touch Magazine in February, “I’d like Nahla to have a sibling in 2009.”

Berry is no Octomom, telling DeGeneres, “I hope I don’t have like 14 more.” Aubry is a little more open-minded, though. Coming from a man who is one of eight siblings, it means a lot to say, “I believe in big families.”

Before motherhood, Berry was focused on a dazzling Hollywood career, earning one of the highest rates for an actress (ten million dollars per film). She can command such a fee after winning the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2001 for her role in Monster’s Ball. Berry also has Emmys and Golden Globes under her belt. As a model, Berry represents Revlon cosmetics and has a fragrance line. In her younger days, Berry was also active in the pageant circuit, winning Miss Teen All-American in 1985 and Miss Ohio USA in 1986. She finished runner-up for Miss USA that year, but won Miss USA World 1986. At that time, she knew she wanted to be an entertainer, telling the interview committee as much and winning that portion of the contest.

Whether sought or not, Berry has become a role model for many people, as the only black woman to win the Best Actress award, and for not just living, but thriving with type-1 diabetes.

I wish Berry and Aubry the best as they expand their family!

International pop legend Madonna, a 50-year old single mother of three, has applied to adopt a second child from the African nation of Malawi. “Her name is Mercy James from Mchinji Home of Hope orphanage. She has no father and mother, they both died,” stated an official at the ministry of Gender and Child Development.

Rumors have been circulating for some time that the singer wanted to bring home a daughter, especially since Madonna herself told the Malawian press last week that she was considering such a move. (Friends of hers suggested that her first adopted son, David, needed a sibling. Madonna said she would do it with “the support of the Malawian people and government.”) But on Friday, officials in both the United States and Malawi confirmed that she had filed paperwork to begin a second adoption. However, Madonn’a personal spokeswoman, Liz Rosenberg, did not comment on the announcement.

Critics attacked Madonna’s throughout her first adoption, completed with ex-husband Guy Ritchie. People said she had circumvented Malawi adoption regulations because of her star power, bringing her son, David Banda, now 3, home to London before the mandatory 18-24 month assessment period that all prospective adoptive parents undergo. Technically, David’s adoption was not finalized until that waiting period was over. And a Malawi government official who did two home studies praised Madonna in glowing terms.

But even without the hubbub over her waiting period, others, including well-known charity Save the Children, harshly criticized Madonna–and all other international adoptive parents, by implication–for removing the child from his homeland.  “The best place for a child is in his or her family in their community,” said a spokesman. “Most children in orphanages have one parent still living, or have an extended family that can care for them in the absence of their parents.” They believe that people should only adopt internationally if there are no options for adopting within your own home country and the child has no living relatives.

In the case of Madonna’s son David, the boy’s father is still living, but had taken him to the orphanage because he could not afford to care for him. Save the Children said that if Madonna really cared about the poor children, she should have given the boy’s dad money to take care of him at home.

Mercy James, the four-year old girl that Madonna seeks to adopt, has no surviving parents. So why would anyone be upset this time around? Because Madonna is not married, and is not a resident of Malawi. Some critics are insisting that she would be breaking Malawian law. However, a Malawi welfare official said this is not true, that they evaluate each case independently. Madonna will appear in court as early as this Monday to present her adoption case.

In 2008, the celebrity said she wanted to take all of her children to Malawi. Madonna has two biological children, 12-year-old daughter, Lourdes, and 8-year-old son, Rocco, in addition to David.

While I have to concede the woman’s amazing vocal talent, I don’t like Madonna at all. I don’t like the circumstances surrounding her adoption of David. But I do not at all agree with Save the Children that it is better for a child to languish in a home-country orphanage when he or she is available for adoption, on the hopes that a nearby relative may visit occasionally. Of course I think it’s terrible when children are taken away from family members. And maybe it would be best for them to stay in their culture. But sometimes that isn’t an option. I have many close friends who have adopted children internationally (China, Guatemala, Haiti, Thailand, and Ethiopia) and domestically, and I think they have done the right thing. There are a lot of children in this world without a home. I think it’s a wonderful thing to give them a home–even if it’s halfway around the world–as long as they have no parents or the parents understand and consent to the adoption.

Finally, Save the Children recommends adopting within your own country. I totally agree. There are hundreds of thousands of American children eligible for adoption. But unfortunately, people don’t do it because they want a baby or toddler. And many people are scared to adopt within the US because of custody issues. My friend who adopted from Thailand went overseas after her first adopted son was given back to his birthmother. (She changed her mind about the adoption 8 months later.) Another couple I am friends with did finalize their domestic adoption, after an 18 month custody battle with their son’s paternal grandparents (the dad had his rights terminated because he was in jail and had 3 other children he was not supporting). These things may be rare, but they happen. And they drive people to seek international adoptions where such interruptions are almost unknown.

What do you think about all of this? In theory, I mean. International adptions, star power, Save the Children. Who’s right?

Last summer, the buzz was all about Thomas Beatie, “the pregnant man,” and his daughter Susan. Well, Beaties, step aside, now there’s something even better. A Spanish transsexual man claims he is 6-weeks pregnant with twins.

25-year old Ruben Noe Coronado Jimenez and his partner, 43-year old Esperanza Ruiz, happily announced the news to the world this week in the popular magazine Pronto. They plan to marry before the babies are born in September, and raise the children–both boys–together in Barcelona, Spain.

In every sense of the word, Coronado is still a woman. Once known as Estefania, Coronado had been undergoing the physical transformation of becoming a man. Photos of Coronado show a balding, bearded man. But Spanish law, as of last year, allows citizens to change their gender status without actually having sex change surgery (if the person is undergoing other kinds of gender-reassignment treatment, like hormones). The proud “mama” says she only retained her legal female status in order to undergo fertility treatment. Coronado took hormone treatment that would restart her periods, and then did in vitro fertilization. She plans to begin the administrative process that will legally transform her into a man this month. So, when she gives birth via cesarean section, she will actually be “he.”

Even though the pregnant soon-to-be-man announced the pregnancy via tabloid press, Coronado insists, “to protect my children I’m not going to sell my story now or in the future.” But she talked to the press in order that the world can start to see transsexual pregnancies as “normal.” But belly bumps are a different thing entirely. And since someone else will do it if she doesn’t, she may just sell a snapshot or two of “his” pregnant belly when the time comes. Can’t wait to see that one.

The obvious question in this case is, “Why didn’t Ruiz–the partner that intends to remain female–undergo the fertility treatment and carry the babies?”. And, as in the case with Thomas Beatie, there is a simple answer: the other partner couldn’t. Ruiz actually has two children from a previous relationship. But the aging mom was told by her doctor that she could not become pregnant again. So Coronado decided she would do it, even though she plans to become a man. And even though Spanish law doesn’t require it, Coronado does intend to complete the surgical sex job she interrupted. In a strange simile, Coronado compared her quasi-transgender status to having three hands. “You take advantage of them while you have them and you get rid of one of them when they get in the way.” Of course. When your uterus gets in the way, you just get rid of it.

So, are you buying it? Is transsexual pregnancy normal? And will Coronado be able to protect his children from the media?

It’s a baby boom! Government researchers just reported that in 2007, there were 4.3 million live births. That tops even the baby boom of the 1950s. After concerns on some fronts in recent years about the US population not reproducing itself, this is a sigh of relief. But the numbers are slightly misleading. According to the Centers for Disease Control, back in the 50s, there were fewer women having babies–but they had more of them (about four kids each). Today, women have 2.1 children a piece (I guess I’m just .1 away from normal. Any of you over your limit? You can have my share.) The highest numbers are in Utah. The lowest in Vermont. I wonder if that is adjusted for population? A quarter of the “women” giving birth are teenagers. And 40% of the births were to unwed parents.

Experts of every stripe are out in force today, ranging from the abortion advocates to family researchers, sociologists and economists. Each of them is weighing in on why things are the way they are. You may not even be surprised to learn that some of the issues here have been blamed on George Bush. (That’s kind of a long-standing game between my husband and I. What did someone blame on Bush today?) Economists say the trend in babymaking matches the economy. Since 2007 was a good year, there were lots of babies. Dr. Carol Hogue, a professor of maternal and child health at Emory University, thinks the birth rate will drop with the downturn in the economy. “The lowest birth rates recorded in the United States occurred during the Great Depression.”

Now the study didn’t say how many of the unwed births were unintended, nor how many of the unmarried women were in long-term relationships with the father. Still, 40% is not a good number. Why are teenagers getting pregnant? Some are saying it’s because they don’t have an abortion clinic nearby. Some say that George Bush tried to teach them abstinence-only but they didn’t get the message. For whatever reason, the teen birth rate had been going down for 15 years. Then suddenly, last year, it went back up.

I am no expert in such matters. But I have been a high school teacher for many years. I can tell you that teenagers are no longer branded by a negative social stigma when they get pregnant. So if it happens to one of them, they no longer have to face ‘outcast’ or ‘hussy’ status. Girls and boys freely discuss their sexuality in school. I also have noted that most of my students who were willing to speak up are very opposed to abortion on a personal level. They would much rather raise a baby than abort it. (This matches the fact that abortion rates have been dropping steadily. Which causes the other?) It also seems like a cultural trend to me when you consider that the numbers are not balanced among different races. The birth rate among black teenagers is twice as high as whites. Hispanic teenagers have three times as many babies as white girls. I live and teach in a community that is more than half hispanic. I don’t know all the ins and outs because I am not hispanic myself. But I do see a positive commitment to family among them. A baby is a good thing. Again, these are just my observations. Of course there are other experiences out there.

So why are older women having babies out of wedlock? Maybe for the same reasons. And, if you add in the fact that marriage is slightly on the decline, it makes sense. Again, if you look at the number breakdown, it is very much a trend within certain cultures. Almost 72% of all black babies were born to unwed mothers. A little more than half of hispanic babies were. Do you have any explanation for this other than cultural attitudes?

There were a few more interesting findings:
- One third of all births are by cesarean. (In Puerto Rico, it’s almost half of all births.) “Every pregnant woman in the U.S. should be alarmed by this rate,” said the president of the advocacy group, International Cesarean Awareness Network advocacy group. Pam Udy continued by saying that more than half of those could have been avoided. If you had a cesarean, why? Was it elective? Was it planned?
-On a positive note, there are fewer premature babies born now. Fewer infants are low-birth weight, too. Is this the result of younger mamas? Or better health care? None of the above?

What do you think of all these numbers?

Does your little girl love Dora the Explorer? Do you?

When Mattell and Nickelodeon recently published a “silhouette” of an older, improved Dora, moms the world over were in an uproar. It appeared that little Dora was wearing a micromini instead of shorts. And her little hips were suggestively swayed, swinging her long, sexy hairdo. Fast-forward.

Mattell was forced to print a full-color version of the new Dora, to prove that she wasn’t a little sex-pot. Turns out, she isn’t wearing a really short dress. She’s wearing a really long top. They go on top of her capri-length leggings. As for her hips, well, she is only 10 years old. And the hairdo is an improvement, if you ask me. All in all, I think she looks great!

Which isn’t to say that I think having Dora grow up is a good idea. How many of us wanted Marvin (the comic strip baby) to grow up? Or the kids in the Family Circus? But you know why they did it. It’s all in the bottom line.

When kids outgrow the 6-year old cartoon character, they stop buying products. So the company is selling a version they hope will keep the cash flowing.

A Mattell press release says, “For nearly ten years, Dora the Explorer has had such a strong following among preschoolers, catapulting it into the number one preschool show on commercial television.” In other words, it replaced Barney (thankfully). And they don’t want Dora to become the next has-been.

“Girls really identify with Dora and we knew that girls would love to have their friend Dora grow up with them, and experience the new things that they were going through themselves. The brand captures girls’ existing love of Dora and marries it with the fashion doll play and online experiences older girls enjoy.” (Also from the press release.)

I don’t know if girls want Dora to grow up with them or not. One of the ways kids grow up socially is by leaving behind some of the things they liked as pre-schoolers. They shun the baby stuff. Will Dora be successful in keeping older girls interested?

Starting this fall, Dora has a new look, a new voice (acted by 12-year old Caitlin Sanchez, who is actually fluent in Spanish), and a new outlook on exploring. Dora will teach some multi-word Spanish phrases. And every episode is going to feature Dora meeting a new friend from a different background. She will spend her time on mysteries like, “How do I save the planet?” The solution: planting trees! She’s also going to use a little more math. These things add up to make her a good role model in many ways. But will it seemed forced? And I wonder if she will keep her vivacious curiosity? That is, after all, why so many people like her. (It looks like she still has her big, blinking eyes.)

The interactivity that marks Dora the Explorer will expand into a new product line. This includes a computer-alterable doll. The description is actually kind of creepy. She plugs in via a USB cable to the computer. The tween-age Dora — Dora’s Explorer Girls — can be customized. If your daughter changes her hair or eye color on the computer, the doll literally responds, too. Don’t ask me how. And the online story content will keep changing, so when the doll is plugged in, you’ll hear all about what she’s been up to. This kind of high-tech play doesn’t come cheap. The current estimate is that Dora will be about $60.

I think the new Dora is really…adorable! And since she is like a friend to millions of little kids, maybe they do want to see her grow up. If successful, I think she can be a positive role model for kids to follow. But I’m not convinced kids will want to keep watching Dora.

What do you think? Will it be a hit? Are you glad to see your preschoolers favorite girl lead the way into Tween-dom? Or are you ready to leave Dora in preschool…

Well, it’s about time. As my baby girl hurtles towards her first birthday, I was starting to get a little worried. For months, she’s been drooling, chewing her hands, everything a baby does when teething. I had well-meaning friends smile knowingly (or thinking they were knowing) and say, “Ah, she’s teething, huh?” I just smiled politely and sighed inside. But I really was getting a little self-conscious about my baby’s gummy grin. She’s already a wisp of a child, and I was pretty convinced she was also going to need dentures. (I am, in fact, missing two teeth naturally; I thought maybe she was missing all of them.) My mom made it worse. She’s not prone to old wives’ tales, but she did relate to me that my sister took my niece in to see a specialist because she was teething so late and it  was supposedly a sign of something… Maybe I should consider doing the same? But, thankfully, my fears are alleviated.

Just after she turned 11 months old, I noticed my daughter kept sticking out her tongue. It was kind of cute. I wondered…hoped, but a week passed and nothing. And she makes it really hard to look in her mouth! But on a Thursday night I was with some friends who commented on her tongue sticking out. I checked; no teeth. But on Friday morning, there it was! A tooth! But not just any tooth–the wrong one. I think my girl is the first I’ve seen who didn’t get one of her bottom center teeth first. Gone are my favorite images of my baby boy who proudly displayed his bottom two teeth for everyone who would admire them. I love that look. So, my little girl got one of the side bottom teeth. My husband and I made a bet on which would come in next. I was putting money on an upper tooth–on the other side. Jack-o-lanterns are kind of cute, right?

I lost the bet. The next Friday I was at a friend’s house and she laughed about the tongue again. Teeth? I checked; no new teeth. But then Saturday morning, what do I find? Not one, but two new teeth! Weird. So  she got three teeth in one week. And by the hair on her chinny-chin-chin, she’s technically NOT a late teether.

All of a child’s tooth buds grow during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most babies won’t cut any of those teeth until about 7 months (depends which source you check), and 99% do have a tooth by age one. A child isn’t considered a late teether until 13 months (again, it depends who you ask). At that point, some doctors may check for symptoms of some other problems that can be associated with lack of teething, such as poor nutrition, gum problems, or thyroid issues. The most “common” medical condition that occurs with missing baby teeth is something called ectodermal dysplasia (abnormalities of the skin, hair, teeth, etc). But there are only about 7000 people in the world with that disorder.

There’s no truth to the idea that the earlier teeth come in the smarter the baby. And it’s not true that climate or childhood illnesses after the timing of teeth, either. But generally, the timing of tooth eruption is apparently hereditary.  My mom told me last week that none of “us kids” had teeth before we turned one. (Now why didn’t she tell me that a couple months ago when she said my sister went off to a specialist?) My girl has already beat the odds, and is odd in getting three lower teeth first. The only discomfort my little girl showed was some bad sleep the last couple weeks. Poor baby. I didn’t do anything to help.

Not that there’s much you can do. Lots of remedies are available, and lots of “home remedies” have been passed around. But most of the experts today pretty much say the same thing: something cool to chew on is about the only thing that really helps. Lots of moms swear by topicals to numb the gums, but I remember using some of them myself when I had braces as a teenager. The small amount I managed to get in the right place–not on my tongue and lips–barely helped before it washed away in half an hour.

We’ve come a long way from the old days. Since they thought teething actually killed babies they were pretty desperate to pass around helpful hints. Things like wiping animal brains on the gums (maybe Orajel doesn’t sound so bad), applying leeches or even blistering and cutting the gums were supposed to help. Some would scald the back of the baby’s head!  Germans would slap the baby across the face at the first sign of the first tooth. It was supposed to help the rest come in easier. (I think I’d rather have uncomfortable teeth.) On the more benign side, they let the dog lick the baby (that helps with a lot of things, doesn’t it?), or carried the baby around the outside of the house three times, or breathed on her after coming home from church.

Maybe in a hundred years they’ll laugh and say, “They used to give their babies frozen bananas! Hahahaha. Isn’t that weird?”

Dr. Severino Antinori came forward on Tuesday to announce that he had cloned three children. He didn’t offer any proof. He did not disclose the identity of any of the children. However, he did give their ages and gender. “It involved two boys and a girl who are nine years old today,” said the doctor. “They were born healthy and they are in excellent health now.”

Sure.

The prominent Italian gynecologist says he achieved–nearly a decade ago–what no other doctor has been able to do since. But he kept it a secret for the sake of the family’s privacy. “I helped give birth to three children with the human cloning technique,” Antinori told Oggi weekly in an interview (which will run Wednesday).

To the reporter’s reminder that human cloning is not only illegal in Italy, but is considered immoral by most of the Catholic population, Dr. Antinori said that it was a matter of semantics. He actually wants people to call his methods “innovative therapies” or “genetic recoding.” But, in the words of former president Bush, call it a banana if you want to. It’s still cloning, if he actually did it.

Antinori claims that the women’s husbands were all sterile. He fertilized their eggs with their fathers’ cells in a laboratory through “nuclear
transfer.” It was similar to the way Dolly the sheep was cloned 13 years ago–but new and improved.

Two weeks ago, Antinori told the world that he was going to help a woman whose husband is in a coma conceive a child. But even that was not the first of his controversial announcements. Fifteen years ago, Antinori helped a 63-year old woman get pregnant and have a child. Sometimes these things happen naturally, but the mother was post-menopausal.

What do I think of these three events? Wrong, wrong, and…liar! A woman who has gone through menopause should not be messing with her body to do something it told her she was too old to do. A man in a coma is a sad thing. I’m sorry that woman and her husband did not have the children she wanted. But he isn’t able to consent to the conception, nor will he be capable of raising the child. So I think it is only for selfish reasons that this woman wants a baby. Maybe she is having emotional difficulty dealing with her husband’s irreversible condition and is hoping a baby will help.

Finally, I don’t believe this guy really cloned three kids. If so, why would he just one day decide to tell us about it without any proof? But if he had done it, I’m not sure it’s the big deal everyone says. I mean, the additional implications are scary, but the fact of creating an embryo through cloning isn’t much different to me than other types of in vitro fertilization. I could be convinced otherwise, I think.

What do you think of this guy?