In history they will not fill their heads with battles, nor in geography with fortresses, for it becomes them just as little to reek of
gunpowder as it does the males to reek of musk.
I have to agree. Leaving a newborn baby with a hospital staff member is a much better alternative to throwing it away. But haven’t there *always[i/] been alternatives? What a crazy thing to do! If a woman doesn’t want the hassle or is for some set of circumstances unable to go through with a legal adoption, why not leave the baby just outside a hospital or police station, where there is has a better chance?
I think this policy has it’s heart in the right place. Possible kinks: How can the state prosecute cases of abuse without discouraging the type of abusive parent that would leave their child in a dumpster in the first place? Or without keeping some kind of records? Also, some might see it as an easier do-it-yourself adoption process, and these kids grow up without any papers or medical history.
(Does anybody else find Rep. Stallings paper plate analogy just plain silly? those darn environmentalists… they have one track minds)
I’ve decided to post only because of Rep. Stallings paper plate analogy.
Her argument makes no logical sense. Yes, we do throw away paper plates and plastic forks, and a trash can will suffice for these. It is a sad fact that some people do throw away their babies, but everyone should agree that a trash can is no place to throw away a baby.
Also, she implies that throwing away paper plates and plastic forks are immoral, what are we suppose to do, wash and reuse them? But, for argument, let us suppose this is immoral, then is the fact that trash cans exist somehow perpetuating our use of paper plates and plastic forks? No, it is our want of convenience. Are trash cans giving us the wrong message? If we got rid of the trash cans, then would people stop using paper plates and plastic forks? I think the paper plates and plastic forks will just end up on the streets or litter our parks.
Her reasoning is faulty. It’s because we don’t want babies in the dumpsters that we should provide the hospitals as a place to “throw them away.”
I have to agree with those who have already said it makes sense. It’s kind of like the needle exchanges to give drug addicts clean needles – it doesn’t mean we’re encouraging drug use, but we know they are going to shoot up no matter what, so we’re all better off if they shoot up with clean needles rather than getting AIDS or hepatitis or who knows what.
Besides, it’s not like we’re going to have girls running out thinking “I don’t care if I get pregnant now because I can always dump the baby.” I think 9 months of pregnancy and the stigma attached pretty much covers the deterrent part.
If they make it through that and still don’t want the baby, let them leave it at a hospital which can immediately arrange adoption by people who really DO want to be parents. IIRC, those people probably outnumber the reluctant mothers anyway.
That’s not a choice, it’s a dilemma!
In The Human Brain, Isaac Asimov, when discussing “imprinting” of animals, says that while such an experiment on the behavior of humans is of course out of the question, we can observe: Children who are brought up in impersonal institutions where they get food, clothing, shelter, schooling, and medical treatment, but are not fondled, cuddled, and dandled like children in ordinary families, become sad little specimens indeed–and many die very young.
Furthermore, children who are raised in otherwise normal settings but are not exposed to the company of other children (“peers”) at critical points in their rearing, develop personalities that are seriously distorted in some way. I should know–this has been a facet of my life, although I was raised by both natural parents until I was 12.
I don’t think there’s much danger of these babies being brought up by the state. There are thousands of hopeful parents waiting in line to adopt newborn babies. It’s mostly the older kids who never find a permanent home.