But anyway, to the topic in hand; I can see that it is less than ideal, because it deprives the child of any possibility of knowing its true parents, and that it creates a problem for social services and/or other government bodies, however, I can’t think of a better alternative; it really does seem to be the ‘least worst’ solution to the problem of unwanted newborn babies of parents who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not use the proper adoption process.
I also think that this opens up the possibility of leaving the father without the option to raise the child on his own. Supposedly there are safeguards against that in some instances but I doubt they would be effective if the mother really wanted to give the child away anonymously.
Now, sometimes it would be a good thing to not have to contact the father, in cases where it would be dangerous to the mother or child. But there would also be cases where the father wouldn’t be notified out of spite or embarassment.
I consider it less than ideal because we are supposed to own up the children we create, not make society care for them.
In this case, some people are so savage in their response to having a child that we basically throw up our hands and say “do whatever you want, just don’t murder your own infant and throw it in a dumpster.” They get a free pass. A person whos response to being a parent is to walk away, that person gets labeled a deadbeat and the government starts garnishing wages because they (rightfully) should pay to raise the child. If dads started strangling their children to avoid child support, would we set up a safe haven for them?
This is not to say that I have a better solution in mind, I don’t, and I do support having safe haven laws, I’m just not exactly thrilled that we need them.
Um. No, because that would be the opposite of what these safe haven laws are trying to achieve; they’re not about shirking responsibilities; they’re about preventing the death of an infant.
(noted from the rest of your post that I think you understand that, only posting the above because the comment about strangling was just… weird).
sad comment on our society that there is no extended family to take this on. Even sadder that we need such a law to protect the babies. It’s a good thing in a shitty situation.
I may have not been clear. In a hypothetical world where it was “common” for a father to strangle his child to avoid child support payments, would we set up a safe haven so that fathers could get free of the responsibility without having to kill the child?
It sure seems like a distasteful way to solve the problem, giving a murderous father an open door to zero responsibility, just as long as he leaves the kid unharmed. I see this as similar to our current safe haven laws, only we haven’t seen our rash of Deadbeat Dad Murders, and we have seen plenty of babies in dumpsters.
:smack: Got it.
In a way, it’s like the illegal immigration amnesty debate: If the people who can’t or won’t follow the “proper” process are going to get what they want anyway, why mandate a “proper” process (in this case, adoption) at all? Of course, the stakes are so much higher in this case, it’s hard to imagine anyone arguing that “following the rules” is more important than even one murdered infant.
Yeah, Cheesesteak pretty much summed up the argument against these laws that I thought of after posting; they give mothers a free pass on irresponsible behavior, while there is no similar way for men to abdicate responsibility while society says “oh well, the alternative is worse.”
Just out of curiosity, is there any serious prosecution of mothers who leave babies in dumpsters? I mean, it happens with some frequency and it would certainly be considered a Very Bad Thing, yet one doesn’t seem to hear of many convictions for that.
Great idea, no downside at all- same thing as if the mom had gone and given the baby up at an adoption agency, only without all the paperwork. It’s not like they’re gonna have a hard time finding parents for a newborn baby are they?
Society may not condone men abandoning their children, but it doesn’t actually do much about it, either. Ever try to get a child support order actually enforced?
I agree that it sucks that we need these laws, but since we do, they’re good to have.
It depends. There are some factors that weigh on how “popular” a baby is with prospective adoptive parents. Gender and ethnicity are two: the spectrum runs from the most in-demand (white girls) to the least (black boys)*. In addition, babies of unknown parentage, where there’s no good way of knowing if the mother was a heavy drinker or smoked crack or snorted meth, are less likely to be adopted.
- Speaking of the US. I don’t know about elsewhere.
I’ve read a few news stories about such a mother being found, and yes, she’s usually prosecuted. I think it’s generally Injury to a Child, which is a pretty serious accusation.
As an adopted person, this statement kind of makes me feel like going :rolleyes: , to be honest with you. Plenty of us do not have any idea who our biological parents are, and have no ill effects from this. In addition, we consider our parents who raised us to be our “true” parents, as they are the ones who have loved & sacrificed for us our whole lives. Many people still choose closed adoptions, which is no different (from the child’s perspective), than the safe haven alternative.
I agree with you here. It would be terrific if people were able to bring themselves to go through adoption before the birth, but if they didn’t know how they were going to feel, or weren’t capable of dealing with it for whatever reason, this seems to me to be better than nothing.
My sincere apologies; I can see it was a bit of an ignorant statement. By ‘true’, I of course meant ‘biological’ - I concede that adoptive parents can be ‘truer’ than biological ones.
No problem! I know you didn’t mean anything by it. It’s just sort of a hot button for me, which is my issue, not yours. I just wish so much that adoption was more well-respected as an option for women who can’t keep their babies, that I tend to have an instant smack-down reaction to things that I think work against that a little bit.
No hard feelings at all! 
There are already social workers and safety nets and such that (ideally) intervene to take some of the stresses off a less-than-ideal family situation, hopefully before someone gets killed. The father isn’t completely free of responsibility, but his responsibility is somewhat reduced if his family gets welfare or other governmental aid.
As for the inherent biological unfairness of pregnancy issues… “tough”, is all I can say. Them’s the breaks.
I see them as a unpleasant reminder of how the US, and the Western world in general, treats postpartum issues. As we move away from a tribal and community based focus to a nuclear or individual focus we increasingly take sources of support away from women during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum timeframes. We increasingly leave the care of newborns solely in the hands of a single individual who has just gone through an intensely stressful event. Life in the West doesn’t even slow down for pregnancy and childbirth, let alone postpartum recovery.
When compared to historical data the actual rates of infanticide are at a very low point in the Western world. Still, virtually every day, there are hundreds to thousands of women struggling with postpartum issues on their own. It seems common-sense to infer infanticide rates are higher than they would be if these women had community/family support.
I am tired of Safe Harbor laws being dragged into every abortion debate as if they had anything to do with the topic.
Enjoy,
Steven
You misspelled “biological.” A child’s TRUE parents are the persons who put in the time to raise it.
Upon reading more of the thread, I see someone already called Mangetout on his use of “true,” and he has already backpedaled, so I apologize for bringing it up again.