Home
>
The Living Room
>
Topic
When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens
Posted by Cambion
|
When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 05, 2022 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,976 |
Story from January of this year - the condensed version is someone left a newborn in a bag outside of a Chicago fire station (which is a Safe Haven location) in the freezing cold, where it proceeded to freeze to death.
All this lazy asshole had to do was walk a few more fucking steps and the firefighters would have accepted the loaf without issue, judgment or legal repercussion. Nope! Too much work! So now the parents, should they be found, will be arrested and face charges for abandoning their kid and letting it die.
Do people really need their hands fucking held in every regard? I mean I guess it's better than chucking the loaf in a dumpster or a river, but literally this kid was steps away from staying alive, but it died out in the cold because Mommy couldn't knock on a door. Surely common sense would kick in and tell the person that maybe I should knock and make sure the loaf is taken indoors? If they cared enough to make the trip to the fire station in the first place, why did they not care enough to ensure the kid made it inside?
https://people.com/human-interest/newborn-baby-found-dead-inside-duffel-bag-outside-chicago-fire-station/
All this lazy asshole had to do was walk a few more fucking steps and the firefighters would have accepted the loaf without issue, judgment or legal repercussion. Nope! Too much work! So now the parents, should they be found, will be arrested and face charges for abandoning their kid and letting it die.
Do people really need their hands fucking held in every regard? I mean I guess it's better than chucking the loaf in a dumpster or a river, but literally this kid was steps away from staying alive, but it died out in the cold because Mommy couldn't knock on a door. Surely common sense would kick in and tell the person that maybe I should knock and make sure the loaf is taken indoors? If they cared enough to make the trip to the fire station in the first place, why did they not care enough to ensure the kid made it inside?
https://people.com/human-interest/newborn-baby-found-dead-inside-duffel-bag-outside-chicago-fire-station/
Quote
A newborn baby was found dead inside a duffel bag outside of a Chicago fire station early Saturday morning, according to officials.
The grim discovery was made around 5 a.m. on Saturday outside of a station on the 1000 block of North Orleans Street, the Chicago Police Department tells PEOPLE in a statement.
The body was found when the firehouse crew went outside that morning to shovel snow, according to The Chicago Tribune. The newspaper also reported that the duffel bag was found covered in snow.
It is not yet clear how long the newborn had been outside.
Fire officials say that there was not an attempt to contact anybody inside the station, an action that could have saved the newborn's life, according to The Chicago Tribune.
Following the discovery, the Chicago Fire Department issued a reminder on social media about the Illinois Safe Haven Law, which makes it possible for newborns to be left with workers at designated safe places with "no questions asked and no judgement given."
"There is no risk to the person being identified or questioned. You can knock on the door, ring the bell, get our attention, we will take the child from you, thank you and you're on your way," Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford told the newspaper.
However, Langford stressed that in order for the system to work, it's imperative for parents to "have contact with someone."
"Under no circumstances do we want people to leave children outside. And because of the way the Safe Haven Law is written, you may hand the child directly to a staff member or Fire Department member — they won't ask for your name, they won't ask for identification, they won't question you at all, which is far better than leaving the child outside," Langford added.
Illinois' Safe Haven law is a safe way for parents who make the difficult choice to give up a newborn for adoption. Handing over a newborn to a Firefighter or Paramedic directly at a firehouse can help facilitate the safest outcome. No questions asked and no judgment given.
However, the parents of the late newborn will now potentially face arrest and charges, officials told the Tribune.
"I'm speechless. I don't know what to say anymore. I want to scream and yell," Dawn Geras, founder and executive director of the Save Abandoned Babies Foundation, told WLS.
"It makes me feel like I failed," Geras added. "There was one other woman out there who didn't know about the law or how to use it, and because of that, there's a dead baby on the door steps of a fire house. It shouldn't happen."
Since the law passed, 143 babies had been taken to a Safe Haven location, according to the Chicago Tribune. However, during the same time period, 87 babies were found illegally abandoned, and 51% of those newborns died.
"Illegal abandonment has decreased over the years, but one baby death like this is way too many," Geras told the newspaper. "People don't think about [the law] until something like this happens."
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 05, 2022 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 3,842 |
maybe they are too fucking stupid. but who knows....
hope they do find the perps but they are probably working on cumstain #2 or 3 or 4. who knows
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
hope they do find the perps but they are probably working on cumstain #2 or 3 or 4. who knows
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 05, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,367 |
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 05, 2022 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Once upon a time Nebraska had the law for brats up to eighteen years ago, good ole' Gary Staton dropped off nine of his ten kids after his wife died:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/unintended-consequences-1.4415756/how-a-law-meant-to-curb-infanticide-was-used-to-abandon-teens-1.4415784
IIRC parunts were driving in from all over the country to abandon their mostly older brats and the law was modified to infants only because of this.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/unintended-consequences-1.4415756/how-a-law-meant-to-curb-infanticide-was-used-to-abandon-teens-1.4415784
IIRC parunts were driving in from all over the country to abandon their mostly older brats and the law was modified to infants only because of this.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 06, 2022 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 3,842 |
dumping off teenagers. I remember that snafu. But they will still spew the same on bingo crap on 'you'll luuuuuv it when it's here' and 'it's different when it's your owwwn'.
Frankly, I hold these bingo spewing pro natalists responsible for a good number of child abuse and murder.
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
Frankly, I hold these bingo spewing pro natalists responsible for a good number of child abuse and murder.
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 06, 2022 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,976 |
Yep, I remember the Nebraska Safe Haven fiasco too. Sounded good on paper, I'm sure, but they probably were not anticipating having people travel from all corners of the US to legally dump their kids
I found a story about a lady who took her kids there because they were so horribly violent and destructive and no treatments they tried worked. I can absolutely see why she would abandon such awful demonic brats. According to this story, all but three of the kids abandoned under the 2007 Safe Haven law were severely mentally ill.
https://www.gq.com/story/nebraska-child-abandon-legal
I'm honestly amazed that only 36 kids were dropped off in Nebraska in a four-month-long time span before the law was amended to include an age limit. I wonder how many parents used it as a way to make their kids behave. "You better stop doing that right now, or I'll leave you in Nebraska!"
I think the age limit should be lifted when the brats in question are like the ones in the article I mentioned - if they are dangerously mentally ill, they should be allowed to get dumped at any age. Kids that are that violent and sick are a danger to themselves, their families, their teachers and classmates, to animals, and really to anyone within reach because you never know when one of these monsters will lash out at you. Many parents will talk about how there's a years-long waiting list for getting their kids help in clinics and group homes, or how they spend years and loads of money just trying to get a diagnosis and find things to make their kids not suck and sometimes the kids are so fucked that nothing works anyway. You can't put vicious brats to sleep like you can vicious animals, so you have to put them someplace.
But then, maybe it's good to not have any stipulations attached to legal child abandonment? Is it better to kick your brats out of the house when you don't want to be a parent anymore, or is it better to raise kids you don't want and hope they don't pick up on your resentment of them? Doesn't matter how much parents try to hide it, if they truly do not want to be parents, their kids will figure it out and it can fuck them up really bad when that realization hits. Problem is if you have dozens of people dropping their kids off to be rid of them, you have to find people willing to work to take care of them and I guarantee nobody's taking that job, even if it pays well.
Meanwhile, the guy who took nine of his brats to Nebraska for dumping went and started a whole new famblee with a new wife and twin loaves.
I found a story about a lady who took her kids there because they were so horribly violent and destructive and no treatments they tried worked. I can absolutely see why she would abandon such awful demonic brats. According to this story, all but three of the kids abandoned under the 2007 Safe Haven law were severely mentally ill.
https://www.gq.com/story/nebraska-child-abandon-legal
I'm honestly amazed that only 36 kids were dropped off in Nebraska in a four-month-long time span before the law was amended to include an age limit. I wonder how many parents used it as a way to make their kids behave. "You better stop doing that right now, or I'll leave you in Nebraska!"
I think the age limit should be lifted when the brats in question are like the ones in the article I mentioned - if they are dangerously mentally ill, they should be allowed to get dumped at any age. Kids that are that violent and sick are a danger to themselves, their families, their teachers and classmates, to animals, and really to anyone within reach because you never know when one of these monsters will lash out at you. Many parents will talk about how there's a years-long waiting list for getting their kids help in clinics and group homes, or how they spend years and loads of money just trying to get a diagnosis and find things to make their kids not suck and sometimes the kids are so fucked that nothing works anyway. You can't put vicious brats to sleep like you can vicious animals, so you have to put them someplace.
But then, maybe it's good to not have any stipulations attached to legal child abandonment? Is it better to kick your brats out of the house when you don't want to be a parent anymore, or is it better to raise kids you don't want and hope they don't pick up on your resentment of them? Doesn't matter how much parents try to hide it, if they truly do not want to be parents, their kids will figure it out and it can fuck them up really bad when that realization hits. Problem is if you have dozens of people dropping their kids off to be rid of them, you have to find people willing to work to take care of them and I guarantee nobody's taking that job, even if it pays well.
Meanwhile, the guy who took nine of his brats to Nebraska for dumping went and started a whole new famblee with a new wife and twin loaves.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 9,199 |
“We still see loaves thrown in dumpsters, toilets, and water, despite the safe haven laws in (I believe) all the US states. I can't understand why, except that many of these babies are born to moos on drugs.”
Well maybe, but when I looked at this the last time we discussed it, I noticed a lot of states only let you surrender an infant that is 72 hours old or younger. (Interestingly, many states where abortion is effectively illegal, such as Mississippi and Alabama, have these short cut off times.) like many initiatives, I think they pay lip service to the idea. I mean 72 hours is pretty quick. Not only is there the physical aspect of Moos getting themselves to a safe haven shortly after birth—it requires a fast decision. States like Connecticut seem more sensible. They give a woman 30 days. Some states even give 45.
That sounds a lot more practical to me. The hormones have died down and maybe by then the gravity of the situation is setting in.
Well maybe, but when I looked at this the last time we discussed it, I noticed a lot of states only let you surrender an infant that is 72 hours old or younger. (Interestingly, many states where abortion is effectively illegal, such as Mississippi and Alabama, have these short cut off times.) like many initiatives, I think they pay lip service to the idea. I mean 72 hours is pretty quick. Not only is there the physical aspect of Moos getting themselves to a safe haven shortly after birth—it requires a fast decision. States like Connecticut seem more sensible. They give a woman 30 days. Some states even give 45.
That sounds a lot more practical to me. The hormones have died down and maybe by then the gravity of the situation is setting in.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,835 |
Yup, I agree with Cambion. Also, I think that a lot more older brats would've been dropped off at safe havens before the law was amended, but because of the crushing stigma and family pressure (Where's my niece/nephew/grandbrat/cousin?) I figure that most parents wouldn't do it. They probably thought about it though.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Most of the brats dropped off via this Safe Haven situation were severely mentally ill. Mental health care in the USA is at best hyper-expensive and rarely covered by any sort of insurance, and in many cases cannot be obtained at all at any price. Most of these brats are fried zygotes. The USA has an epidemic of defective brats and there is nothing even PNBs can do about helping these brats.
+++++++++++++
Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
+++++++++++++
Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
Cambion
According to this story, all but three of the kids abandoned under the 2007 Safe Haven law were severely mentally ill.
https://www.gq.com/story/nebraska-child-abandon-legal
I'm honestly amazed that only 36 kids were dropped off in Nebraska in a four-month-long time span before the law was amended to include an age limit. I wonder how many parents used it as a way to make their kids behave. "You better stop doing that right now, or I'll leave you in Nebraska!"
Okay that read was just plain scary! I don't know how anyone slept at night around those two mentally ill brats. The potential silver lining is the siblings may decide to not have brats after seeing such bad mental health genetics in their families.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
bell_flower
“We still see loaves thrown in dumpsters, toilets, and water, despite the safe haven laws in (I believe) all the US states. I can't understand why, except that many of these babies are born to moos on drugs.”
Well maybe, but when I looked at this the last time we discussed it, I noticed a lot of states only let you surrender an infant that is 72 hours old or younger.
That is a ridiculous limitation, I thought 30 days was very limiting. Why not at least 90 days? I think most people who adopt would gladly take an infant at 90 days old. Maybe this isn't true.
I'm clueless on this but if someone drops off a small infant then how would the authorities know it is older than 72 hours...and if they did figure it out then do they attempt to go after the moo/duh? If so, what happens when they show up and the moo is on the streets as a drug addict? Or living where ever she can and is mentally ill? I'd guess prosecuting most of those cases isn't going to really bring about justice...it is likely just a big waste of time/effort.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 9,199 |
Quote
That is a ridiculous limitation, I thought 30 days was very limiting. Why not at least 90 days? I think most people who adopt would gladly take an infant at 90 days old.
Yes, to me the whole thing smacked of "feel good legislation for da childrun" with no practical application. Kind of like pro-liars who bleet about all the "baybees" being aborted, but don't ask them to spend a cent raising any of them.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
bell_flower
Yes, to me the whole thing smacked of "feel good legislation for da childrun" with no practical application. Kind of like pro-liars who bleet about all the "baybees" being aborted, but don't ask them to spend a cent raising any of them.
There are some ridiculous laws out there that don't make any sense!
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 07, 2022 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,976 |
The 30-day return policy is weird and dumb because it takes a lot of people longer than that to realize they made a huge mistake by reproducing. If someone knew right away they didn't want to stay pregnant, they'd get an abortion or pursue adoption. They might think they want to keep it and think they can handle it, but after four months of not sleeping or bathing or interacting with anyone outside of the child, they want out. Having no law that makes this an easy process four months in is just going to ensure the kid stands a higher chance of being abused, neglected or murdered because the parents don't feel there's any other way out.
I think all states should have Safe Haven laws that extend the dropoff age all the way up to 17 years old, no questions asked and no boxes to check like "not responsive to psychiatric treatment" - just if you want to get rid of your kid, you can. But there should be stipulations for the parents: make it so people who dump off their kids HAVE TO get sterilized, like they have to sign a contract saying they will undergo a tubal ligation or a vasectomy within, say, six months of abandoning their kids (and they must mail in proof of the surgery) or else their original children will be returned to them. I say six months because I don't know how long it takes to get in for a sterilization procedure, on average. Maybe somehow make it so the state will pay for it so they can't claim poverty as an excuse. In other words, if you throw your fucked up kids out like trash, you don't go get to make more of them. I think that's fair. No other red tape - if you want to surrender your 15-year-old brat with every mental illness under the sun because she's a threat to your safety, or you just want to give up your 12-year-old because he's an asshole, both are valid reasons.
But like I said, the issue would be finding people willing to work with the kids who are dropped off. The violent mentals will need a dream team of professionals to deal with them, and the totally normal kids whose mommies didn't want to mommy anymore will need counseling/therapy.
I think all states should have Safe Haven laws that extend the dropoff age all the way up to 17 years old, no questions asked and no boxes to check like "not responsive to psychiatric treatment" - just if you want to get rid of your kid, you can. But there should be stipulations for the parents: make it so people who dump off their kids HAVE TO get sterilized, like they have to sign a contract saying they will undergo a tubal ligation or a vasectomy within, say, six months of abandoning their kids (and they must mail in proof of the surgery) or else their original children will be returned to them. I say six months because I don't know how long it takes to get in for a sterilization procedure, on average. Maybe somehow make it so the state will pay for it so they can't claim poverty as an excuse. In other words, if you throw your fucked up kids out like trash, you don't go get to make more of them. I think that's fair. No other red tape - if you want to surrender your 15-year-old brat with every mental illness under the sun because she's a threat to your safety, or you just want to give up your 12-year-old because he's an asshole, both are valid reasons.
But like I said, the issue would be finding people willing to work with the kids who are dropped off. The violent mentals will need a dream team of professionals to deal with them, and the totally normal kids whose mommies didn't want to mommy anymore will need counseling/therapy.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 12, 2022 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 438 |
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 12, 2022 | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 5,635 |
I bet the person who abandoned that poor newborn didn't want to knock on the fire station door, because then a firefighter might answer it before she could flee. She didn't want to have to look them in the eye. I suppose the solution to this is building baby hatches on the outsides of fire stations now.
Re: Nebraska's safe haven law...the results spoke for themselves, including the fact that most of the older kids were severely mentally ill. Parents w/ violent kids have few resources, and those kids get more dangerous as they grow up. There are some kids who just straight-up need an institution--for the safety of everyone involved.
Re: Nebraska's safe haven law...the results spoke for themselves, including the fact that most of the older kids were severely mentally ill. Parents w/ violent kids have few resources, and those kids get more dangerous as they grow up. There are some kids who just straight-up need an institution--for the safety of everyone involved.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 13, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,701 |
In my state there were news reports of women dropping a newborn at a safe haven, with attempts being made to find her. One safe haven even had a camera aimed at the door, and put the video online with the media in hopes of naming and shaming her. Of course all the comments said the mother was an evil witch, because how dare she give up a baby...she should be arrested, sterilized, needs Jesus, etc...we here at Bratfree know the rest.
If I was ever put into that situation, I'd either drive out of state and drop it off while wearing a mask and dark hoodie, or I'd go to the Pine Barrens late at night.
If I was ever put into that situation, I'd either drive out of state and drop it off while wearing a mask and dark hoodie, or I'd go to the Pine Barrens late at night.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 13, 2022 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,976 |
What the fuck is the point of a Safe Haven when they want to identify the mother? The whole purpose of these things is so the woman can leave her kid there anonymously. Making it known that you will attempt to identify and locate the mother in order drag her through the mud and punish her legally for abandonment is just going to make her leave the loaf in a dumpster or out in the woods instead. Then there will be more stories about all the dead abandoned loaves found when the town has nice handy dancy Safe Havens available that no one uses.
You can't even dump babies on people's doorsteps anymore because everyone has doorbell cameras now and they'll know who you are unless you wear non-identifiable clothes and a mask. I wish people would just fucking understand that not every woman wants to be a mother and that's perfectly okay. Surely letting a woman drop off a baby at a safe place no questions asked is better than making her feel that her only option is to abandon the child in a box in an alley so it can die slowly of starvation or exposure? Or is a dead baby truly better than an unwanted one?
You can't even dump babies on people's doorsteps anymore because everyone has doorbell cameras now and they'll know who you are unless you wear non-identifiable clothes and a mask. I wish people would just fucking understand that not every woman wants to be a mother and that's perfectly okay. Surely letting a woman drop off a baby at a safe place no questions asked is better than making her feel that her only option is to abandon the child in a box in an alley so it can die slowly of starvation or exposure? Or is a dead baby truly better than an unwanted one?
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 13, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,701 |
Quote
Cambion
What the fuck is the point of a Safe Haven when they want to identify the mother? The whole purpose of these things is so the woman can leave her kid there anonymously. Making it known that you will attempt to identify and locate the mother in order drag her through the mud and punish her legally for abandonment is just going to make her leave the loaf in a dumpster or out in the woods instead. Then there will be more stories about all the dead abandoned loaves found when the town has nice handy dancy Safe Havens available that no one uses.
You can't even dump babies on people's doorsteps anymore because everyone has doorbell cameras now and they'll know who you are unless you wear non-identifiable clothes and a mask. I wish people would just fucking understand that not every woman wants to be a mother and that's perfectly okay. Surely letting a woman drop off a baby at a safe place no questions asked is better than making her feel that her only option is to abandon the child in a box in an alley so it can die slowly of starvation or exposure? Or is a dead baby truly better than an unwanted one?
They don't care about the baby. The baby is just a tool to control the woman, because how dare she not want a child, how dare she be unwilling to care for a loaf. These types jack off to the thought of subjugating women and what better way to do it by forcing her to raise kids? It's pure misogyny.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 14, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,367 |
After thinking about this, it occurred to me that total anonymity when dropping off an infant at a safe haven would not be a good idea. What if some scatterbrain or evil relative (say, a grandparent) stole the infant to dispose of it? Or the duh drops off the infant without the moo's knowledge so he won't have to pay child support? Or the same moo drops off every infant she spawns over time? Or an abused woman is being forced to get rid of the baby?
It appears the authorities do investigate to preclude abuse and the like. Using a safe haven is not anonymous as many think. "Leaving the baby with no questions asked" doesn't mean you won't be identified.
It appears the authorities do investigate to preclude abuse and the like. Using a safe haven is not anonymous as many think. "Leaving the baby with no questions asked" doesn't mean you won't be identified.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 14, 2022 | Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 129 |
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 14, 2022 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
Cambion
What the fuck is the point of a Safe Haven when they want to identify the mother? The whole purpose of these things is so the woman can leave her kid there anonymously.
I agree, what on earth is the point? How were the people filming and publishing the video not arrested for doing so? I guess they would rather baybeez be found in dumpsters.
I read an article where they talked about how 80-100 years ago it was unheard of to abandon a child. Interesting rewrite of history, because back then people would drown them if they couldn't afford/take care of them. Other people would either look the other way (because they weren't any better off) or some may offer to take the baybee. It was called survival and it was assumed adults knew what they needed to survive and others avoided judgement.
A big part may be the safety net, which is unfairly skewed towards anyone who has a brat. 100 years later and we've become aggressive on judgement, solutions-not so much.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 14, 2022 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 3,842 |
there are medical tests, background does help. and wow 'an inherited condition, but peepuulll don't want to believe genetics apply to them...
and it can lead to adopted out children where the parent(s) did not want them, could not support a child, showing up on a persons doorstep. some have even been stalked by these asshole grown children 'why won't you talk to me"... saw a picture of that with some stupid girl standing outside where the bio mom worked. I have always wondered if some of these dumb ass kids get the wrong information and show up on the wrong doorstep? and cause all sorts of hell... even where one was the bio parent it can shatter a family.
oh well. phooey on all of it
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
and it can lead to adopted out children where the parent(s) did not want them, could not support a child, showing up on a persons doorstep. some have even been stalked by these asshole grown children 'why won't you talk to me"... saw a picture of that with some stupid girl standing outside where the bio mom worked. I have always wondered if some of these dumb ass kids get the wrong information and show up on the wrong doorstep? and cause all sorts of hell... even where one was the bio parent it can shatter a family.
oh well. phooey on all of it
two cents ¢¢
CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!
people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong
Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.
The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.
Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke
Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 14, 2022 | Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 9,976 |
Quote
kman
After thinking about this, it occurred to me that total anonymity when dropping off an infant at a safe haven would not be a good idea. What if some scatterbrain or evil relative (say, a grandparent) stole the infant to dispose of it? Or the duh drops off the infant without the moo's knowledge so he won't have to pay child support? Or the same moo drops off every infant she spawns over time? Or an abused woman is being forced to get rid of the baby?
I can't imagine whomever is at the safe haven wouldn't ask questions if an older person or a man showed up with a loaf for disposal because that could easily be a baby being dropped off without the mother's consent. Keeping an eye on the news for reports of missing infants would be good too in case someone pretending to be the mother left the kid without the real mother's consent.
Or if it is the mother, ask her (in private) if she is voluntarily surrendering the child. I know that probably goes against the "no questions asked" part of safe havens, but maybe that one can be the exception to ensure she's not being coerced? I think requesting medical history is acceptable for the sake of the child because every kid deserves to know if they're going to be predisposed to some awful disease. But the woman shouldn't have to give a name or other identifying information if she doesn't want to.
I think the safe havens are definitely a step in the right direction and I know they've prevented a lot of unnecessary loaf deaths, but it's a system that needs tweaking.
|
Re: When breeders are too lazy to even use Safe Havens March 18, 2022 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,367 |
Quote
Cambion
Quote
kman
After thinking about this, it occurred to me that total anonymity when dropping off an infant at a safe haven would not be a good idea. What if some scatterbrain or evil relative (say, a grandparent) stole the infant to dispose of it? Or the duh drops off the infant without the moo's knowledge so he won't have to pay child support? Or the same moo drops off every infant she spawns over time? Or an abused woman is being forced to get rid of the baby?
I can't imagine whomever is at the safe haven wouldn't ask questions if an older person or a man showed up with a loaf for disposal because that could easily be a baby being dropped off without the mother's consent. Keeping an eye on the news for reports of missing infants would be good too in case someone pretending to be the mother left the kid without the real mother's consent.
Or if it is the mother, ask her (in private) if she is voluntarily surrendering the child. I know that probably goes against the "no questions asked" part of safe havens, but maybe that one can be the exception to ensure she's not being coerced? I think requesting medical history is acceptable for the sake of the child because every kid deserves to know if they're going to be predisposed to some awful disease. But the woman shouldn't have to give a name or other identifying information if she doesn't want to.
I think the safe havens are definitely a step in the right direction and I know they've prevented a lot of unnecessary loaf deaths, but it's a system that needs tweaking.
All good points. It occurred to me when reading this thread that I had not heard of any safe-haven laws actually mentioning mothers could simply remain anonymous when dropping off an infant. The subject simply did not come up, but some could be misled to think it was implied. "No questions asked" seems to refer to reasons for not wanting the child and does not necessarily mean anonymity.
This brings up a question. Are there instances of mothers who went to safe havens, faced demands for identification, and "changed her mind" and decided to leave with the baby, just to kill or dispose of it later? That should be a scandal for the safe-haven advocates.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.