Just thinking aloud a little: I’ve never liked “safe haven” laws–legal abandonment of babies.
Here’s my conundrum: I want us saving kids. But do safe-haven laws send a cultural message that there’s no responsibility that comes with being a mother if you don’t ask a mother to at least hang out, talk to authorities? …I think you might save some babies lives but you send a larger cultural message—that infants can be dropped in emergency-room deposit boxes, etc. Nevermind the odd potential legal and other problems that could arise. In other words, does it do more damage than not?
Anyway, I am reminded of that in today’s story about the baby in Florida who was thrown from a car with a plastic bag over her head. The parents are criminals and better be prosecuted.
But doing the TV this morning the sheriff (I think it was, of Broward Co.) almost overemphasized that mothers can get rid of their children via safe-haven laws (which, admittedly, is a brilliant alternative to throwing a newborn out of a car). On The Today Show, though, Matt Lauer had to remind the guy to point out that what was done here was a crime.
Legal abortion, Peter Singer…legal abandonment…these things are very different mind you–the first two vs. the last–but there’s an association…get my drift about the overall culture messages? I guess what I am saying is that I rather communities/states be expending energy on adoption-education campaigns. This is how you responsibly and easily give your child to another….