‘Lucifer’ Banned In New Zealand

'Lucifer' Banned In New ZealandLucifer cannot be born in New Zealand. And there’s no place for Christ or a Messiah either. In New Zealand, parents have to run by the government any name they want to bestow on their baby. And each year, there’s a bevy of unusual ones too bizarre to pass the taste test.

‘Must not cause offense’

The country’s Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages shared that growing list with CNN on Wednesday. In the past 12 years, the agency had to turn down not one, not two, but six sets of parents who wanted to name their child “Lucifer.” As the agency put it, acceptable names must not cause offense to a reasonable person, not be unreasonably long and should not resemble an official title and rank.

‘Lifetime of pain’

It’s no surprise then that the names nixed most often since 2001 are “Justice” (62 times) and “King” (31 times). Some of the other entries scored points in the creativity department — but clearly didn’t take into account the lifetime of pain they’d bring.

“Mafia No Fear.” “4Real.” “Anal.” Then there were the parents who preferred brevity through punctuation. The ones who picked ‘”*” (the asterisk) or ‘”.”(period).

And what happens when parents don’t conform? Four years ago, a 9-year-old girl was taken away from her parents by the state so that her name could be changed from “Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii.”

Would you name your child ‘Lucifer’ or ‘Messiah’? Tell us about the craziest name you’ve come across!

Source: Lateef Mungin, CNN

Image: NY Daily News

Time Magazine’s ‘Provocative’ Cover Sparks Mommy Debates

The headline reads, “Are You Mom enough?” But if that wasn’t enough to fan the flames of the Mommy Wars, there’s the photo that goes with it: A pretty young woman wearing skinny jeans and a tank top, nursing her nearly 4-year-old son.

It’s meant to illustrate a story about Dr. William Sears and attachment parenting but, given that there’s more to that movement than extended breastfeeding, it seems as if Time magazine was going for sensationalism and shock value. It’s working.

“As a pediatrician, I believe that every mother should breastfeed her child for at least six months, preferably a year (even longer if they like),” KP.MD commented. “This, however, is extreme. And the photograph — everything about its composition – sends a message that I find tasteless and more than a little disturbing.”

Photographer Martin Schoeller says that the photo, as well as the portraits he shot of other attachment parenting moms nursing their kids, was inspired by the iconic religious image of the Madonna and Child. The boy on the cover is standing on a chair, which makes him look both taller and older — a technique that Schoeller says he used to underscore how unusual extended breastfeeding can seem. Though plenty of people seem to think that Time has gone to far — The Atlantic Wire called the cover “PG-13″ and The Right Scoop describes it as “seriously NSFW” and “soft porn” — to others, the photo wasn’t the most offensive part.

“While this picture is gawk-tastic, I’m more disturbed by the title of the article. ‘Are You Mom Enough?'” Yahoo! reader Chrissy from Conroe, Texas, commented. “I’m sorry…’Mom Enough?’ So this woman is deemed more of a ‘mom’ simply because she chose to breastfeed her child until he was damn near as tall as she is?”

Do you think Time went too far with this magazine cover? Share your opinions with us!

Source & Image: Yahoo News