Turns out the charming folks who comment on our website didn't much care for this year's "first baby of the year" story.

They seem to believe that A) We shouldn't report interesting stories; and B) If you have a child out of wedlock, you and your baby are doomed.

I find line of thinking B deeply unfair. We have absolutely no way of knowing how things for this new family are going to turn out. Why say, right from the getgo, that they're not going to make it? Must we insist that they conform to the "unwed mother pattern"? If so, then we allow them no individuality. Do the commentors mean to say that people are merely patterns?

What's going on in the lives of Daniel, Amanda-Rose, and their son James Paul appears to some commentors to be immoral. The behavior of Daniel and Amanda-Rose doesn't conform to their dumb, unnuanced moral orthodoxy. For this reason, the commentors I'm talking about, it appears, would, to remain secure in their own worldviews, prefer that this new family fail. (Though if Amanda-Rose were Bristol Palin, she would, I'm sure, be blameless.)

Daniel and Amanda-Rose and James Paul, I wish you the best of luck. Please ignore the folks who commented on your story.