THIS is why we need to more strictly regulate the whole industry of sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate mothers, whom eggs and babies are given (sold) to, etc. Evidently, one surrogate mother had no idea that the child she was carrying (biologically hers? or somebody else's?) would ultimately be absorbed into Michael Jackson's freak show. Shouldn't she have? Plus, Jackson never filed the paperwork necessary to legally adopt the children?

So--somebody just handed three innocent children over to someone who'd been charged (more than once) with child molestation? Please tell me this isn't true. No, don't bother, because I won't believe you.

(Image © Splash News)

Comments

[Amy]

I'm a little concerned about the apparent lack of grace you are willing to give to Michael Jackson. "Freak show"? Is that really necessary coming from a Christian after a man's death? Yes, he was beyond eccentric, but I find the pathology rampant in his life saddening and worthy of compassion instead of worthy of the man simply being summarily dismissed as a "freak."

As for the charges against him, they were absolutely horrifying. But, for anything it might be worth, let us not forget that he was never convicted of any crime ion(and acquitted by a jury in the second case). For better or worse, our country considers him legally innocent.

As for adoption, there was no need for him to adopt the children. He was their legal parent and on their birth certificate.

Please don't misread me, it's obvious Jackson had serious and troubling issues. But I don't think the man deserves to be vilified and cast aside as if he was unfit of humanity. Or to put it differently, perhaps we all deserve to be seen as the wicked sinners that we are. But then there's grace, thanks to our Lord.

I guess what troubles me most is that this line of thinking appears at a site hosted by Prison Fellowship. Not that I know much about the ministry, but I guess I assumed more compassion would be advocated.

[Gina]

Amy, please note that Michael Jackson himself was not called a "freak show." In fact, we discussed that very point behind the scenes and were careful to avoid calling him that, for the very reasons you cite. Still, even while having compassion for his problems, it's hard to avoid the fact that the man lived at the center of a freak show of his own making.

[LeeQuod]

Amy, what's truly shocking is that a conservative Republican would ever say "[...] we need to more strictly regulate the whole industry [...]". Michael was indeed a force for change. ;-)

[jason taylor]

Not really Lee. It is Libertarianism that is about limitation of government, period. Conservativism cares about limitation too but cares more about where the government's power is, then about it's simple quanity of power.

The temptation to reduce others to pawns is extremely dangerous, one of the most dangerous in our age. It is especially dangerous because an authority figure in a large organization can't avoid doing so sometimes and the dividing line between what is necessary and what is pernicious can be very thin. This fact is most certainly one of the main arguments for reducing government. Nontheless protecting people from each other is accepted by conservativism as being one of the main justifications for government and perhaps a source of legitimacy in itself. As a corralary to this, the fate of those who are reproduced in new and unusual ways is certainly within the legitimate interest of the State.

[Diane Singer]

I've been trying to avoid the MJ news as much as possible. It's already been a circus, and it will probably get even worse in upcoming months as the cause of his death becomes known, and more aspects of his bizarre lifestyle come out. My sympathies are with these children. Regardless of whose they may be biologically, Michael was they only dad they ever knew: now, they've lost a father, and they are in danger of becoming victims of those who will spend the next 20 years preying on Michael's legacy. Weep for the children.

[Benjamin Ady]

So in your regulation of things, you would have rules based on what someone has been charged with, even if they were never convicted? Isn't this a bit a move even further into the insanity of trial by media?

That sounds kinda scary. I mean with convictions alone we already have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, as everyone here at the point doubtless knows too well.