And now he exploits infants, namely his own, for big bucks and big bucks.

According to the Washington Post, McKay is disdainful of the criticism he has received for making his daughter an unwitting puppet in his video tomfoolery. One reason may be that much of that criticism has come from Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who earlier this year was the target of a YouTube video that similarly used an actress too young to know what she was saying. Speaking of Pearl's first starring vehicle, McKay said, "She doesn't remember any of it. She never said any of it again. She doesn't know what 'Get your drink on means.' "

"We know what we're doing as parents."

I don't think so.

A core ethical principle (most famously articulated by philosopher Emmanuel Kant) is that one does not use human beings against their wills as a means to an end. Putting infants on public display to appear ridiculous, make a political statement, or otherwise convey a message that they do not understand is an unequivocal violation of this principle. The fact that the exploitive and unethical adult is the child's parent doesn't change that conclusion or mitigate the unethical nature of the conduct. In fact, it makes it worse. An adult is supposed to make decisions for an infant that are for the welfare of the infant, not the parent.

Imagine, if you will, a FunnyorDie video in which an Alzheimer's sufferer or an individual in the late stages of ALS appears to be saying outrageous things. Does that tickle your funny bone, or would you find it an unforgivable breach of those individuals' human dignity and free will? There is no difference that I can see between Pearl's exploitation and this, except that we're used to babies being abused by having to wear anti-abortion T-shirts or being made to wear ridiculous outfits for their parents' amusement.

William Wegman's popular and profitable photographs of his deadpan pet Weimaraners in outlandish costumes often bothered animal-lovers who felt that the animals were being debased. Wegman always insisted that his dogs enjoyed dressing up. But they are dogs. Pearl is a human being, and unlike the dogs (or for that matter, the Alzheimer patients), the day will come when she will have to see herself spouting those profane words she now doesn't remember. Will she be embarrassed or amused? I have no idea, but I do know that she was given no choice in the matter. That is wrong. She was used, her dignity compromised, her own interests ignored. Her father and Ferrell were absolutely unethical to do this.

Children are not props, joke devices, freaks, puppets, cheap labor, fashion accessories, pets or hood ornaments.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp?