A woman wants to get paid to use her baby as a billboard.<br>LINK<br>Someone should have put chlorine in that gene pool a long time ago.<br><br><br>

My first thought, from the title of your post, was tattoos! Thankfully, it's only apparel - not too unthinkable... not that I agree with the idea. But, if advertisers are willing to shell out big bucks to the family, I question who is the offensive party? I also think it's a matter of how far the family is willing to go - bundling the child in a bodysuit banner on a sweltering summer day could be a problem.<br><br>- alec

It's the way of the world these days.<br>It all depends upon how far you are willing to go to sell your soul. <br>Using your baby as a billboard. Makes money and national headlines.<br>Am I the only one who just wants to strangle her?<br><br><br><br>

I think I've developed an "armour" to deflect the the things that at one time would have driven me nuts... luckily(?). The real tragedy is there are apparently too many like me. Perhaps more outrage IS necessary.<br><br>To be honest, I've all but given up on my fellow humans... the price some pay for moving on through generations and allowing oneself to become "accustomed" to the status quo. I'm guilty, as charged.<br><br>- alec

It's pretty clear that these are not people who put their kids first. This is about money, notariety, bragging rights... none of which really benefits the child. Oh, maybe they'd put the money into a college fund, but somehow, I see a pool, or a new deck, or a Hummer instead. <br><br>Can you imagine the psycological damage to the baby? Being the center of that much attention at such a young age is bound to have consequences as he/she grows up. I would hope that Childrens' Services is taking a close look at this couple.<br><br>

I don't totally agree with this practice, but you apparently assume that because they agreed to this they don't love their children. Maybe by doing this for the money, they ARE putting their children first. If you found out that the child has some disease that requires him/her to take medication for the rest of their life, would you feel the same way? I know I wouldn't. I would say that is the most resourceful, loving parents around.<br><br>As with most everything, you have to take it in context and consider all sides of it. Sure, for many (if not most) people, this is a really pathetic excuse for breathing, but that is more of a reflection on the parents than the company shlepping their goods.<br><br><br><br>CreativeGuy: For your "fix" of design software tips, tricks & commentary.

Point taken, except that no such extenuating circumstances are mentioned in the article, and if you read Mom's comments, the whole thing started as a lark. The fact that they are now seriously considering it still tells me they're not putting the child before their cute little scheme. And the fact that there are advertisers encouraging this stunt makes me a little ashamed of being in the business.<br><br>Besides, there are ways to raise money and awareness for genuine hardships that don't require making a spectacle of your kid. I've done enough pro bono for the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in the past to be sensitive to such issues. That, and having endured the magnifying glass process of two adoptions has given me an admittedly slanted view of parents who put their kids in any kind of harm's way.<br><br>

I am amazed at some of the things I read about but very few shocks me any longer.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I would hope that Childrens' Services is taking a close look at this couple<p><hr></blockquote><p>It looks legit so I don't think there is much they can do. I am sure it will be brought to their attention however.<br><br>

I meant that figuratively. But still...<br><br>