What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Update:
For those of you joining late who don’t wish to wade through the 125 comments, the post below was a thought experiment to test a hypothesis, not a serious condemnation of Safe Haven Laws.
On several anti-gay marriage threads, it is posited that gays shouldn’t qualify for marriage recognition because they cannot breed. Some claim it may actually affect the social norm of heterosexuals to marry and have children, and there is a government interest in maintaining procreation.
Yet no one can describe the mechanism – exactly how government recognition of those who cannot breed will affect the behavior of those who can. I suspected it is an excuse to get to a desired result; that the proponents of the idea don’t actually believe government has such power of persuasion over the second group by the simple act of recognizing the first group.
To test their commitment to that theory, I posted below and adopted their claim: That government recognition of one group (those who are abandoning their babies) will cause another group (those who are not) to be affected on the decision to abandon their babies too.
In this thread, the idea that others would have their attitude affected about child rearing based upon government recognition of those who are abandoning their children was denied. The almost mystical power of persuasion the government can have over one group by recognizing another disappeared.
When stopping gays marrying was the desired result, government power of persuasion was claimed. When the desired result was saving children, government power of persuasion to cause child abandonment (by assisting in the abandonment!) was at one end of the spectrum denied and at the other end ignored.
______________________________________________________________________
That country would be America. Do you even recognize her anymore?
All 50 states have adopted a form of the Safe Haven Infant Protection Act.
Under the law, within 30 days after birth, you can drop your child off at any police station or hospital and walk out.
In fact, the law has a slogan: “No shame. No blame. No names.”
No names?
If no parent comes back to claim the child for 21 days, the State will move in Court to terminate the parental rights of the parents and allow for adoption. That means there will be no child support responsibility of the birth parents, either.
I suppose we can call it the pro-orgy law, because there seems to no longer be any government disapproval of reckless sex. One can imagine some sympathetic people this might help, but isn’t this also an easy out for the prostitute, the philandering man and shameless tart?
I recalled this law when discussing gay marriage with member KC Mulville.
KC, like many of our members, had made the point that gay marriage is unwarranted because marriage is inexplicably tied to birthing children, and it is an accepted truth that “society demands biological parents raise their children.”
Not anymore. Now that every state allows you to rid yourself of parental responsibility with the ease of dropping off your child like she were a pizza, the once accepted truth that society demands we care for our children is now an untruth. Demand it? Society is no longer even suggesting it.
If the case against Gay Marriage is that government acceptance of a behavior is an encouragement of the behavior, then what behavior is this law encouraging?
I will concede a couple of points. We’ve always allowed people to give up their children for adoption. This just makes it easier, and perhaps the ease is exactly what gives me pause. Once we remove any consequence to birthing a child, haven’t we devalued human life? Haven't we accepted hedonism?
Also, this law has obvious cross-over to the abortion debate. I can see a pro-life position in this, by telling women if they feel emotionally unready to be a parent, or to cite the Supreme Court, not financially ready (as vulgar as I find that excuse, it is part of the basis for the Court’s opinion), then all they need to do is let the child live, and society will care for the child.
Of course, this has to be like poison to anyone who has a sliver of traditionalism or social conservatism (not to mention parental instinct). Nothing in this law stops a rich and ready person from transferring their child-rearing responsibility to the State, even if the excuse is they are too lazy or simply can’t be bothered. Or they wanted a boy, not a girl. Or this child is too sick and inconvenient.
If our culture of family values is spiraling downward, the state promoting a no cost, no shame abandonment of children has to be the latest point on the continuum toward the destruction of nuclear families that has at the other end no fault divorce and the repealing of alienation of affections as a tort.
So I again turn to the Ricochet political and cultural noosphere for answers. What do we think of these state sanctioned and supported child abandonment laws? Net positive or net negative?
- Comment (200)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno
Force was not my motive here. My motive, ulterior as it was in the post (and hopefully now exposed by me in the comments) is to put to the test certain rules of sociology people claim about gay marriage and other issues.
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage is also an acceptance of its quality. Do they believe this law is an acceptance of the quality in abandoning your child?
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage will encourage others to become homosexual. Do they believe this law will encourage others to abandon their children? ...
Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.
· Jun 21 at 3:05pm
Which reminds me ... those of us over on the same-sex marriage thread are still waiting for proponents to engage our actual arguments as opposed to the straw men ones.
This post is going over like a lead balloon at least in part because you're not engaging any of the actual arguments being made regarding the same-sex marriage debate.
May I take it Mollie that you are not a proponent of the arguments in my comment number 36?
Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:14amDec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.
· Jun 21 at 3:05pm
How about:
1) The Safe Haven laws reinforce the societal norm that even an unwanted baby should have the right to live, and that society should encourage its mother to choose safe surrender rather than abortion.
2) Societal strictures against recognition of committed gay relationships as marriages reinforce the societal norm that families ideally should be constituted around a mother and father and their children. A society that grants committed gay relationships all of the trappings of marriage except the actual word seems to me to be expressing tolerance of other family structures while still holding up the heterosexual nuclear family as an ideal. That the society permits family structures that are less than ideal -- granting no-fault divorce, decriminalizing illegitimacy (and even banishing the word "illegitimate" from its vocabulary), allowing gay couples to adopt -- does not mean that it should be forced to abandon the notion of the ideal family structure.
Can't have it both ways? Heh. I can believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Jan '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
To be fair to Tommy, he may be bending over backward to accommodate an argument that I usually make. I usually argue that child-bearing is part of the definition of marriage, and that's why the issue came up to begin with.
I argue that the state has an interest in procreation, and it's not just about numbers, but also to insist that the children be taken care of. I argued that society demands that the biological parents take care of the children, and that marriage has always been a social convention that was based on that obligation.
Tommy's point was to rebut that; he said that the state doesn't demand that the biological parents take care of the children, i.e., the Safe Haven law. However, having landed on the Safe Haven and given a chance to consider it, it does raise a Ricochet-worthy question:
Should society demand that the biological parents take responsibility for children?
If not the biological parents, then who? I argue that the moment you make responsibility for children voluntary, the game is over, please turn out the lights.
Jun '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
"Some claim government recognition of gay marriage is also an acceptance of its quality. Do they believe this law is an acceptance of the quality in abandoning your child?"
Yes to both. If gay marriage is legalized, the government has elevated it to equal footing with heterosexual marriage. A safe haven law, eliminating legal actions against a mom who drops off her baby in a safe place elevates that action over the nasty alternative presented by Stuart. It is an acknowledgment that babies need stability and capable, functioning parents in order to thive. It encourages a smart decision in the interest of the child.
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage will encourage others to become homosexual. Do they believe this law will encourage others to abandon their children?
This corollary doesn't fit. You can't "become" homosexual.
"Some claim government recognition of gay marriage will devalue heterosexual marriage. Do they believe this law will devalue parenting?"
If you rephrase the last sentence to read (more acurately ) "devalue the importance of being raised by a biological parent" then you could logically answer yes to both.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
May I take it Mollie that you are not a proponent of the arguments in my comment number 36? · Jun 21 at 3:14pm
Edited on Jun 21 at 03:14 pm
Nope -- for a variety of reasons. Some are clearly straw-men arguments I've seen no one make, particularly here at Ricochet. Others are arguments that I wouldn't make for big reasons or small (disagree with the underlying contention or the word choice, etc.).
But I'm actually still in the questioning phase when it comes to same-sex marriage. My own view is that the state should not set marriage law. So while it's somewhat difficult for me to discuss whether or not we should have the government redefine marriage to include same-sex partners, I have plenty of questions
My #1 argument, if i get around to making one, is that we've failed to consider the unintended consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. I'm mostly interested in religious liberty considerations and other private contracts (e.g. insurance).
But no, I'm not a proponent of any of the arguments you make in 36.
Jan '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
LOL! Are you suggesting that I can't shoot straight?
OK, I can't, but that's beside the point ...
Dec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
The Safe Haven laws deal with the extreme of this question: if and when a woman demonstrates that she is willing to put her child to death in order to evade responsibility for it, should the State tell her, "Go ahead and kill your kid, and we'll punish you to make an example of you," or should it provide her an escape hatch to keep her from killing her kid?
It's kind of a screwy discussion to be having in the context of freely-available abortion, which undermines the entire premise that women are required to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancies by having babies.
And of course there's not much distinction between parents being "responsible" for their biological children while on public assistance and parents abandoning those children for foster or adoptive parents to raise. One could argue that the latter is preferable if it helps the children avoid being raised in a culture of dependency.
Dec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
KC Mulville
LOL! Are you suggesting that I can't shoot straight?
OK, I can't, but that's beside the point ... · Jun 21 at 3:23pm
Isn't the point of a shotgun that you don't need to shoot straight to use it to good effect (at least in dealing with predatory males)?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
This post is going over like a lead balloon...
For your observation I hold as much respect as disagreement. For my purposes, I consider the post a resounding success.
Ricochet is a place of study for me (hopefully for all of you too). I want to learn as much as I can about interpreting politics and sociology, and sometimes that means engaging in the occasional thought experiment.
My hypothesis was that on gay marriage, people will claim sociological rules that they don't truly hold dear - they will abandon those rules when a differing set of facts is presented.
The hypothesis is proven correct. Those who hold that government recognition of gay marriage will affect the behavior of others, were quick to come here and denounce the same sociological tenet when I applied it to Safe Haven laws. They now argue that government recognition, even assistance, in abandoning children will have no affect on the behavior of others.
Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:32amRe: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
But no, I'm not a proponent of any of the arguments you make in 36. · Jun 21 at 3:22pm
If government recognition of gay marriage will not affect the behavior of anyone else, what then is left of any reason to oppose it?
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
My hypothesis was that on gay marriage, people will claim sociological rules that they don't truly hold dear - they will abandon those rules when a differing set of facts is presented.
The hypothesis is proven correct. Those who hold that government recognition of gay marriage will affect the behavior of others, were quick to come here and denounce the same sociological tenet when I applied it to Safe Haven laws. They now argue that government recognition, even assistance, in abandoning children will have no affect on the behavior of others. · Jun 21 at 3:31pm
Can you provide any examples of this? I note that I and the only person I remember from the other thread -- KC -- have remained consistent in our argumentation.
And have we established that this was even a valid thought experiment to begin with? I guess I'm much less impressed with the comparison than you are -- even though, as I noted above, I think these safe harbor laws are worth contemplating. They don't come close to redefining laws governing parenting, though. In fact, they might reinforce parenting laws. So the comparison is lacking.
May '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
Interesting point you make. Doesn't your argument call into question those who claim government recognition of gay marriage will cause a change in behavior of so many people as to threaten the institution of marriage itself?
Rules of sociology shouldn't change. Either government recognition of a behavior can affect subsequent choices or it can't.
What say you? Can it or can't it? · Jun 21 at 2:44pm
Fortunately, government recognition of behavior rarely has any effect on actual behavior and I hope it stays that way.
Jun '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Guys, all this talk of shotguns is violating the rules of sociology! Some claim that a ranch owner near the Mexican border can't defend his property by owning the gun and shooting at illegals who damage his irrigation lines or break into his home.....do they also believe that an angry dad can use his shotgun to force his dauhter's dead beat boyfriend to the altar?
Take your pick...you can't have it both ways.
Dec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
The hypothesis is proven correct. Those who hold that government recognition of gay marriage will affect the behavior of others, were quick to come here and denounce the same sociological tenet when I applied it to Safe Haven laws. They now argue that government recognition, even assistance, in abandoning children will have no affect on the behavior of others.
You're making no sense at all.
We live in a society in which any woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy at will. It takes, therefore, a dedicated fruitcake to decide to have a baby and then kill it or leave it in a trash can to die. The hope of the Safe Haven laws is to change the behavior of the fruitcakes by giving them the option of letting their babies live. How it could possibly encourage irresponsible sex more than birth control and abortion do is beyond imagination.
Gay marriage is entirely different. I remember being told in the 1970s that "marriage is just a piece of paper," and in today's America, it almost is. It's bizarre that now I am told that gay couples aren't fully accepted without that piece of paper.
Jun '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
"And have we established that this was even a valid thought experiment to begin with? I guess I'm much less impressed with the comparison than you are -- even though, as I noted above, I think these safe harbor laws are worth contemplating. They don't come close to redefining laws governing parenting, though. In fact, they might reinforce parenting laws. So the comparison is lacking.
Agree.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
By the way I learned something else from this post:
There is no such thing as a deadbeat Dad or a deadbeat Mom. We should abandon the terminology.
Apparently anyone who abandons their child wasn't capable of raising the child. The deadbeat Dad isn't making a choice, he is innocent and worthy of our pity as the teenaged girl (apparently all women who abandon their children are woeful teenaged girls - l learned that too).
Since deadbeat Dads aren't bad guys refusing to be responsible but are merely incapable, I'll alert the probation department that they should cancel all their arrest warrants and ask the jail to free the deadbeat Dads. They're victims.
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
While you work on providing all those examples of folks who changed their position, I have a question.
On the other thread, we talked about how government redefining a pre-governmental institution to include same-sex couples might be unwise.
What's the parallel here? I'm not saying there isn't one, but what is it? Can you help me out? How is government redefining parenthood via safe haven laws?
Dec '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
What part of "terminated parental rights" do you not understand? The Safe Haven law has nothing to do with "deadbeat dads" -- once the baby has been surrendered, it legally has no dad or mom.
Ask rather what rights a father may have with respect to the surrendered baby. Can he assert parental rights and take his kid home?
You've fallen in love with this false analogy you've built. You might want to start from scratch and try again.
Mar '11
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
It takes a rather perverse person to argue that one instance of progressive idiocy justifies another.
May '10
Re: What Do You Think Of A Country That Allows You To Abandon Your Child With No Consequence?
Tommy De Seno
Stuart Creque
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage is also an acceptance of its quality. Do they believe this law is an acceptance of the quality in abandoning your child?
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage will encourage others to become homosexual. Do they believe this law will encourage others to abandon their children?
Some claim government recognition of gay marriage will devalue heterosexual marriage. Do they believe this law will devalue parenting?
Either the rules of sociology hold that government acceptence of a behavior influences others, or it doesn't. · Jun 21 at 3:05pm
Tommy, these are not the arguments against gay marriage. Accepting its quality? No. A gay couple can have a better quality relationship than a hetero couple with a marriage liscence. Marriage being one-man-one-woman doesn't imply that gay couples don't have quality.
Gay marriage encouraging more people become homosexual? People might be more likely to experiment, but that's not the argument I am making at all.
Gay marriage devaluing marriage? No. Not devaluing. Redefining. Becoming something different than it has been. It will still be valuable for people to partner.