Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

“Baby Boxes”…??? Options · View
SITTING
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:26:22 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 848
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
The UN has said it is increasingly concerned at the growing use of “baby boxes” for unwanted newborn infants. The boxes – actually hatches outside hospitals, with an alarm to summon a carer – were pioneered in Hungary in the 1990s. Now, there are around 200 in Europe, including 80 in Germany and 47 in the Czech Republic. Advocates argue that they result in fewer babies being killed at birth, and provide a vital service to desperate woman. However, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child warns that by allowing the parent to walk away, the system breaches the child’s right to know their parents’ identity. There is also evidence that the drop-off is often made by men or relatives, raising questions about the woman’s consent. The UN says the problem would be better addressed through family-planning advice and support for unplanned pregnancies. (Source: The Week, Issue 873)

This is the first I’ve ever heard about baby boxes and I’m pretty shocked that they even exist but then again I guess they are a good idea for women who feel like they have nowhere else to turn.

I can’t decide whether I’m for or against; what do you think???


Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:00:52 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,633
Location: Burrowed, Norway
I can see the positive of women who don't want their baby(like prostitutes) actually having a place to go to for delivering their baby.

When it comes to the part of the woman's consent then I'd be willing to put money on that usually we're talking about prostitutes or other victims of human trafficking. The pimps and "owners" of these women have complete disregard for human lives and will kill one of "their" girls just to set an example and to keep the others in line. For them money is more important than a human life, and especially a prostitute's baby. After all, her taking care of the baby will take time away from her "street time". I doubt there are that many of them that will have a problem killing off a newborn, but maybe they use the babybox because that leaves no body and it won't make the prostitute go insane(which I wouldn't blame her for).

A child's first right is to live. Let's deal with the other rights once we're sure that the kid is alive.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
SITTING
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:18:14 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 848
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
elitfromnorth wrote:
I can see the positive of women who don't want their baby(like prostitutes) actually having a place to go to for delivering their baby.

A child's first right is to live. Let's deal with the other rights once we're sure that the kid is alive.


I like that. Big Hugs

Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:57:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,421
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm not opposed to the baby boxes. In America there's a similar policy, any baby can be dropped off at any fire station or hospital. No questions asked. I can understand Elit's concern about pimps and human traffickers. But I'm less inclined to believe that's what's going on here. The brutal people that are pimps and traffickers could make a harsher example by killing the baby instead of (just) the mother. The baby offers nothing to a money hungry thug, the mother is a continuous source of income.

It's probably more likely that if men are dropping off babies it's because the mothers have asked them to so they themselves won't have to do it. I'm sure there are some babies taken from their mothers against their will, which is a whole other sort of brutality. Taking away the "baby boxes" will not change that. If someone has the power to take a woman's baby, he'll still do it. He'll just dispose of it differently.

As for the parent's identity, that's nothing new. Adoptions in the U.S. were closed for decades. There are websites strictly made to connect parent and child based soley on birthdays. Parent puts on the site her info about when she gave birth, what the baby looked like, maybe the city. A kid puts her birthday, sometimes matches are found. The same thing could be done for "baby box" babies. And with the accessability of DNA testing once a match is made it would be easy to confirm. Won't be easy, but it's possible.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
blazestcyr
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:24:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 737
Location: where bugs die
if it saves a sweet baby's life...& the child does not suffer....but the image of it...is staying with me....
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:42:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
There are plenty of alternative places to abandon an unwanted baby. Anyone who complains about the ease of abandoning them anonymously in a place where they will get care is just too damn fussy to take seriously. The idea of a right to know their parents' identity is a logical fallacy. Upon what right is it based?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Nikki703
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:54:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 13,601
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
Im for it . It allows a mother who knows she cant care for a baby to see it goes to someone who can care for it without having the hassle and pressures she will get if she went to an adoption agency or a church.

They will save the lives of babies!
elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:26:37 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,633
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:
There are plenty of alternative places to abandon an unwanted baby. Anyone who complains about the ease of abandoning them anonymously in a place where they will get care is just too damn fussy to take seriously. The idea of a right to know their parents' identity is a logical fallacy. Upon what right is it based?


I fuess the whole thing about knowing who your parents are is based on the human right about everyone having the right to an idedentity. Some people don't feel like they belong 100% to the family they're adopted into, even if they call them mom and dad and sisters and brothers. To some you don't belong unless you're blood. Some kids that are adopted here in Norway don't considered themselves Norwegian, they say they're Korean or Chinese or wherever they were born.

It's an emotion, thus you can't rationalise it. I don't blame an adoptive child wanting to know who his/her biological parents are, and I think that's probably something parents that adopt are aware of could happen.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:19:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,421
Location: Alabama, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


I fuess the whole thing about knowing who your parents are is based on the human right about everyone having the right to an idedentity. Some people don't feel like they belong 100% to the family they're adopted into, even if they call them mom and dad and sisters and brothers. To some you don't belong unless you're blood. Some kids that are adopted here in Norway don't considered themselves Norwegian, they say they're Korean or Chinese or wherever they were born.

It's an emotion, thus you can't rationalise it. I don't blame an adoptive child wanting to know who his/her biological parents are, and I think that's probably something parents that adopt are aware of could happen.


As someone who is adopted, I know all about this subject and the emotions that come with it. I love my parents and sisters with all my heart. But there was always a part of me that wanted to know more. Why was I put up for adoption? But I also have friends that were adopted and some of them have ZERO desire to know anything about their biological parents. NONE. It's a very personal thing and varies from person to person.

I found my biological mother. Unfortunately, I found her after she'd passed away so my lifetime of wondering continues. We, my biological siblings and I, think we know why but it's all conjecture. My adoption was closed, however after lots of digging we found a trail. And a government worker who could be bought, without that last person I'd still know nothing.

Off subject, sort of but thought I'd share.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:35:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
I fuess the whole thing about knowing who your parents are is based on the human right about everyone having the right to an idedentity.


Who dreamt up a "human" right to something that your DNA already gives you? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "someone who wanted to impose an involuntary burden on parents."

Quote:
It's an emotion, thus you can't rationalise it.


Imposing your emotions on others against their will is bad government. It invites them to find alternatives that in this case are less in the interest of the child.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:43:58 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:


Imposing your emotions on others against their will is bad government. It invites them to find alternatives that in this case are less in the interest of the child.


I'm sure you would disagree on fundamental philosophical terms, but I just don't think every issue of humanity relates back to the ever-encroaching power of the "collectivists." To generally believe that every person deserves to know their own history, genetic and/or otherwise, has everything to do with how a person sees and helps to define one's self and perhaps nothing at all to do with what defines good and bad government, nor other people's will being imposed.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:08:08 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
SITTING wrote:
The UN has said it is increasingly concerned at the growing use of “baby boxes” for unwanted newborn infants. The boxes – actually hatches outside hospitals, with an alarm to summon a carer – were pioneered in Hungary in the 1990s. Now, there are around 200 in Europe, including 80 in Germany and 47 in the Czech Republic. Advocates argue that they result in fewer babies being killed at birth, and provide a vital service to desperate woman. However, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child warns that by allowing the parent to walk away, the system breaches the child’s right to know their parents’ identity. There is also evidence that the drop-off is often made by men or relatives, raising questions about the woman’s consent. The UN says the problem would be better addressed through family-planning advice and support for unplanned pregnancies. (Source: The Week, Issue 873)

This is the first I’ve ever heard about baby boxes and I’m pretty shocked that they even exist but then again I guess they are a good idea for women who feel like they have nowhere else to turn.

I can’t decide whether I’m for or against; what do you think???


I believe that options such as this need to be protected. The reasons, and the judgment upon the mother/father, are mostly beside the point, in my opinion. If a new mother is humane enough to realize that her child would be in better hands if they aren't her own, then regardless of the circumstance, there should be an avenue which will allow her do so without delay, retribution, or danger. I can't imagine doing so myself, but I can certainly imagine the sad circumstances where this would, and does, occur.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:17:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I'm sure you would disagree on fundamental philosophical terms, but I just don't think every issue of humanity relates back to the ever-encroaching power of the "collectivists." To generally believe that every person deserves to know their own history, genetic and/or otherwise, has everything to do with how a person sees and helps to define one's self and perhaps nothing at all to do with what defines good and bad government, nor other people's will being imposed.


It isn't the will of the babies who are suffering the fate of being unwanted that the boxes be removed. That's the will of people who want to force the parents to be associated in public records with the children they are abandoning, so they can use that data to serve their own purposes at the parents' expense. Still think it's not collectivism? Using the government to force others to serve your purposes against their interest is what collectivism is all about. It gives control to people who have no business having that control.

The belief that "every person deserves to know their own history, genetic and/or otherwise" is just an unprovable belief that must be taken on faith. It therefore doesn't belong in the province of good government but instead, in the realm of religion.

In case it isn't obvious, religion is a form of collectivism and is responsible for some of the worst atrocities of collectivism.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:34:05 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:


It isn't the will of the babies who are suffering the fate of being unwanted that the boxes be removed. That's the will of people who want to force the parents to be associated in public records with the children they are abandoning, so they can use that data to serve their own purposes at the parents' expense. Still think it's not collectivism? Using the government to force others to serve your purposes against their interest is what collectivism is all about. It gives control to people who have no business having that control.

The belief that "every person deserves to know their own history, genetic and/or otherwise" is just an unprovable belief that must be taken on faith. It therefore doesn't belong in the province of good government but instead, in the realm of religion.

In case it isn't obvious, religion is a form of collectivism and is responsible for some of the worst atrocities of collectivism.


To the first part of your message: 10-4. That makes sense to me. As I've stated, I think the boxes, or some similar means, should continue to be available.

As for the belief that children deserve to know their history if it's available anywhere, I wasn't using the word belief in a religious faith-based way. I believe in a person's rights to learn their knowable history the same way you believe in an individual's rights vs. a powerful central government. Your belief in the individual and his rights vs. collectivism has nothing to do with religion either.


1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 5:53:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I believe in a person's rights to learn their knowable history the same way you believe in an individual's rights vs. a powerful central government.


The individual rights that I believe in can be traced to a single axiom, the belief that life is good. If life is good, then a right to life exists (by what right can anybody claim otherwise?) and all rights logically traceable to it are valid. If life is not good, then any talk of rights is absurd. The right to life and all rights logically traceable to it place no burden on others except that they respect the rights of others as equal to theirs, that they not employ double standards, that they not bind the individual to serve their purposes without consent while the rightholder remains unbound.

You believe in "a person's rights to learn their knowable history" at whose expense? Does a person have a right to spend the GDP of a country in order to learn their knowable history? Do they have a right to bankrupt their parents in order to learn their knowable history? Do they have a right to require anybody, including their parents, to sacrifice anything in order to learn their knowable history? I think not to all three cases. Any such right can't be traced to the right to life and would bind the individual to serve their purposes without consent.

You could argue that conceiving or birthing a child gives the child implicit rights to sacrifices from their parents. How did the child earn those sacrifices? What deal did the child make with the parents to earn those sacrifices?

A person has a right to pursue their knowable history to the extent that they don't require a sacrifice by anyone unwilling to help. To translate that to a right to learn it is to force somebody to involuntarily serve their purposes.

Quote:
Your belief in the individual and his rights vs. collectivism has nothing to do with religion either.


Religion and other forms of collectivism are universally anti-life, they require either the believers or the non-believers to suspend reason and embrace dogma. They employ might to compel sacrifice. The distinction between religion and other forms of collectivism is functionally irrelevant.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:08:21 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 651,817
Although the idea of baby boxes seems quite horrific to most people, I believe they are good idea. They provided a invaluable service to those babies who were left in them by giving the infant a second chance at what will hopefully become a better life than maybe he/she would have had to endure with their natural parents.
It's a sad situation when a woman feels the need to abandon her child child in the first place, especially as there is a vast choice of birth control but situations arise, accidents happen and unfortunately unwanted babies may have had to suffer the consequences.

I feel glad for the babies that are passed onto loving families but I still feel bad for some of the women who felt they had no other option than to give their child. For some women I'm sure it's very hard to live with, even if it was done
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.