How do you feel about magazines airbrushing babies' photos?

A little torn here... I can understand taking out boogers, dark shadows, stray hairs etc., but anything more than that is wrong!

If a baby has been crying enough to be red in the face then maybe it is not a good time to take a picture? If you feel the need to alter a baby's characteristics than I would think it's just the wrong baby for the job.

omg people, freak out! It's a fricken photo that was touched up. Get over it!

I find it so funny that any magazine would try to remove a baby’s natural beauty. Are we supposed to compete with other mothers now over dimples and fat rolls? Should we all compare our bundles to skinnier ones? Perhaps the outcries will serve a purpose and help open our eyes…babies are perfect, enough.

I can't believe that as a society as a whole we have become so obsessed with looking "perfect" that we are now airbrushing babies! As a art tool photoshop is amazing, but we need to keep photoshop and airbrushing out of our magazines and off our magazine covers!

When will we as a society learn to accept our "flaws"? When can we accept ourselves and others as is?

Parents are pursuing super model status for their infants and we're appalled at a magazine that does airbrushing on a photo?

Initially I thought this was a joke...how could this possibly be newsworthy?  I guess this is really important to some...as for me, I have better things to worry and care about.

I think that some here are missing the point entirely. WHY do we feel compelled to make everyone appear "perfect" on magazine covers, when in fact none of us are in life? It is disturbing to force (fake!) perfection on anyone...but a baby or child should simply be left alone to be themselves and be adored just as they are. Period.

They seem to want to alter photos to please the consumer, but when the consumers scream that they're appalled by these altered images why don't they listen!

I think it's as terrible as retouching/airbrushing photos of older kids & adults to create "perfection." For the public to achieve this "perfection" to be an accepted human being, why they'll be buying exercise equipment; buying weight-loss products; joining gyms; employing personal trainers; buying skin and hair products; buying cosmetics; buying plastic surgeries, boob jobs, veneers, botox, etc; buying clothes, shoes and accessories - even cars; and the list goes on and on. We live in a capitalistic, consumer-driven economy. Those "perfect" images set an unrealistic standard that sells products. It isn't going to change. As for people who think it's horrible to airbrush a baby, I say "apply that same attitude to ANYONE who's featured in printed media."

That's what Stella has to say on this Wednesday.

I think the reasoning behind the retouching is important. Airbrushing out creases in a baby's arms (which are so adorable) could be because someone thought a baby was "too fat", which would be appalling and sad. If it really was to increase the readability of the type on the cover, that seems understandable. It looks like they left the crease on his neck alone, so hopefully it's the latter. Magazine covers are art, not reality. I saw a photo of the -back- of a supermodel once... clothes taped across her back to fit in a certain way, hair attached to cardboard struts to hold it out fuller, it was hilarious... from before computer retouching. Making a model/baby look smoother, even toned, etc I can see from an artistic standpoint. But when you get into unrealistic standards of beauty, who is "perfect" enough, etc., that's when things get murky.

It's a photo. It's common practice they touch up everyone's picture so what they fixed a few things on a baby's picture. They're trying to sell magazines so they want the person to look their best. Even the mother didn't have problems with it so why is everyone else making a big deal. Normally I'm on the other side of the issue but I feel we already know retouching photos is the norm. It's not like they drastically changed his appearance. If you really want to make a statement then we should all stop buying magazines because they all do it.

Did I missread the article? Did they say they put chemicals on the babies skin to lighten it? Did the surgically remove creases? Give him chin implants?

No they didn't. They retouched a photo. Get off your politcally correct high horse and realize its just a photo. It wasn't made sexy to appear in some pedo smut mag. It was for the cover of a parenting magazine. Pay me to take a photo of my child for a magazine cover and I could care less if you retouched it to make him black,asian or purple. It's still going in my baby's scrap book.

People, Get over yourselves, there are way to many things more important than a photo on a magazine to get upset about in the world right now. And as for the politicians getting involved, you have bigger things to meddle in like hampering the war on terrorism and messing up the economy more than you already have.

This is hilarious! So much fuzz about this!???? I agree if the baby has red eyes, because he/she just got up, it might not be the best time to take a pic,... then again, it's the industry, and time is an issue. If people can't deal with that, well don't buy magazines, none for that matter. Don't go to movies either. Don't even watch news. Nor buy make-up, or ice-cream, with all the testing going on, you never know. Once we are at it, don't smoke, don't drive, don't curse, don't wear leather,.... and so on, and so on. It's a picture, people!

When I read the article's headline, I first taught someone had lippo-sucked the baby's fat rolls on his/her tummy or something like that, for a cover picture. THAT would really have creeped me out! But it turned out to be retouching of a pic, and that's what all the fuzz is about??? Common.

Sounds of 'mass hysteria' to me. We'd better be carefull, next we know we start a war because someone retouched a baby pic on some cover of some baby magazine.

I wasn't sorry to read this article, on the one hand I felt I wasted my time (also giving this reaction) on such a silly issue,... but I got a good luagh out of it. To think people take such issue on such things. Really. Still smiling.... will go on for a while. Thanks for that!

OK, we live in a world where human beings routinely starve to death, are slaughtered in the name of "God," and are discriminated against on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion or lack of religion. In such a world, there are really no words to adequately express the irrelevancy of whether a baby's fat rolls were airbrushed away or not. Such a question is simply not important and does not merit serious discussion.

Grow up, people, and save your torches for things that really matter.

It is my understanding that they did nothing to the child. They only retouched the photo. What sort of publicity stunt is this? All the hoopla to increase magazine sales? Isn't it wonderful that we can express our opinion. That our lives are so blessed that we have the time, mental and emotional energy to care if a photo has been altered. I think we should give equal time to the thousands upon thousands of CHILDREN who ARE altered every day. Will YOU be THEIR voice?

I don't think I care that they air brushed the kid but I sort of worry about the pre-teen and teen girls and the message it sends to them that an editor took out baby fat. I wonder how many more young girls and teens are going to miss a meal or upchuck one thinking, "See they even want skinny babies!" So air brush away but surely don't tell anyone they did it!

This is yet another 'roll' in society's fear of fat. What have we come to, when the weight of a group of humans that are expected to be chubby and have natural rolls of fat is airbrushed into unnatural portrayals of slenderness? Babies are supposed to have rolls. They are supposed to be chubby. A chubby baby is a healthy baby. A skinny baby is not. I am not advocating extreme baby obesity by any means, but come on here - there is a reason we have the term baby fat!

So, I guess my question is, "Why does it matter so much?" Models do it, the average everyday person does it. Its a photo. Big whoop. On a side note, are mom's generally much older when they have children in Europe, or just this mom? She may also want to go to the beautician to have her bangs fixed, instead of worrying about retouched photos...just a thought :)

I think it's insane to airbrush the little fat rolls out on babies' photos. I also think it's crazy to lighten their skin tone making it seem as if black babies aren't as "valuable" as lighter skinned children. Babies are beautiful without any artificial means. By all means, take out red eye but nothing else.