France had a similar policy in the seventeenth century IIRC. Churches were installed with revolving platforms so a mother could place the child on the platform, and then turn it so that the child ended up inside the church, out of the elements, and the mother would never be seen. This led to an enormous glut of babies, many with severe health problems.
What will happen to all of these children? That’s my only concern with this. Like a lot of the other posters, I would much prefer a baby left warm and safe in a hospital than abandoned on an icy park bench by its mother. Still, there isn’t much of an adoption market for minority babies, or babies with health problems. A lot of people won’t want a baby about whose health and background nothing is known. Add to this that no one wants to adopt and grow to love a baby whose mother changes her mind five years down the road and sues to regain custody. Even with the thirty-day provision, its a given that some mothers will yearn for their childen, get back on their feet and want that child back. We’ve seen too many times with ordinary, regular adoptions, let alone an abandonment that could have been done on the spur of the moment, or out of sheer desperation. Later, when these women’s cicumstances change, they may try to get their child back. Even if her suit to get the child back is unsuccessful, there would be enormous pain and stress placed on the adoptive family.
I know this topic was discussed in a couple abortion threads and at least one other thread. Here is one I found, you can read some other opinions. Leave Unwanted Babies Here
Manda JO brought up an excellent point that I’d like to expound on further. In adoptions, provisions are made to notify the other parent (usually the father), and allow him to challenge the adoption. In anonymous abandonment situations, I don’t see how the father would have any opportunity to prevent the abandonment and find out what happened to his baby.
Isn’t it true that a father can somehow make a legal statement that he doesn’t want the child and thereby force the mother to either take full responsibility? I think someone I know was being sort of trapped into marriage and found this possibility. About a month into the pregnancy he made such a statement and the mother then had to decide whether to abort, give it up for adoption, or keep it. She aborted and he was forced to pay half of the abortion (something he was willing to do anyway). This info came to me second hand and so I don’t want to stand by it’s accuracy. Anyone have any info?
Also, this is an appropraite thread to release my new sig line. See my nifty sig. Worship the sig.
Or was it the links to the related threads that killed it?
I’m bumping this to see if anyone will answer my related hijack but if I don’t get anything I’ll repost it as a general question. Also, because I really like my new sig. If this were IRL I’d do a dramatic reading of it for you all. Just imagine Branagh’s Henry V saying “WOOGUM WOOGUM WOOGUM” except that the spittle comes from the listener instead of the speaker.