Baby boxes: Compassion or Cruelty

[babydolla]

someone thats unfit shouldnt be a parent…

u would rather that person, who so easily would rather abort or box up their baby & legally abandon it be forced to be a parent???

such a notion should be conspiracy to commit child abuse, i’d rather see the baby in a babybox & end up in a home that will raise them right rather than be aborted, or worse forced to be raised by someone who in actuality never gave a f*ck to begin with & sees pregnancy as an inconvenient side effect to hacing sex…

 

[Bread.]

someone thats unfit shouldnt be a parent…

u would rather that person, who so easily would rather abort or box up their baby & legally abandon it be forced to be a parent???

such a notion should be conspiracy to commit child abuse, i’d rather see the baby in a babybox & end up in a home that will raise them right rather than be aborted, or worse forced to be raised by someone who in actuality never gave a f*ck to begin with & sees pregnancy as an inconvenient side effect to hacing sex…

No they would need to relinquish their rights like the people who are doing it to grown children are forced to.

The difference is the people who abandon newborns can do it anonymously.

Nobody is forcing them to be a parent.

 

[SerenityMoon]

Anywho, back to the original post.

Another very American topic. As if the rest of the world still doesn't exist. Abortion or putting children up for adoption, or putting them in a babybox, is always and ever the prerogative of the mother. And if any man thinks they can meddle in that, they're stupid.

Your argument defers that the father has no rights, unless the mother decides to give him rights or force him to have responsibility.

 

[Inkandtatts]

À. Women don't get pregnant by looking at a **** with or without a condom. They get pregnant from sexual intercourse. Women control access to sex through consent.

B. There is no punishment for abortion (murder) under 20 weeks nor is there punishment for using a baby box. Hence why these irresponsible women can just dump babies.

C. The emphasis on this debate is that mother's can abandon newborns but not grown children. Abandoning children anonymously is illegal but not newborns.

D.if you agree that father's should be prosecuted then that means you also agree that fathers should have a right for the irresponsible or unwilling mothers not to abort their children.

This already happens and applies to both men and women.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

Because sex is consensual unless it's rape, in which case it is criminal and already prosecuted

The reason they may choose to bunk up for 9 months is because over 20 weeks it's illegal to murder a child. In which case they will have to "deal with it" til it comes to term. Then they can dump it in a baby box and walk away.

If it's a crime to dump it in a dumpster anonymously then it should also be a crime to dump it in a baby box anonymously.

A: That's a typical misogynistic statement to make

B: You still haven't commented on the irresponsible fathers that helped make the baby in the first place. Whatever the mother is prosecuted for, the father should be too.

If a man and a woman have unprotected sex just for the thrill of it, men get it very easy after. Due to biology women who keep their babies potentially get stuck with unwanted babies for years with lay-about fathers who do nothing or very little to help. Even those that pay child support get it easy. Give women a break.

C: You're wrong. Abandoning a newborn in the woods would be treated the same as abandoning a 7yr old in the woods

D: You're right. I agree that fathers should have a say when it comes to abortion but that should be subject to them taking on responsibility for the child. Again though, abortion isn't the issue here

The reason they may choose to bunk up for 9 months is because over 20 weeks it's illegal to murder a child. In which case they will have to "deal with it" til it comes to term. Then they can dump it in a baby box and walk away.

This is verging on laughable. Your whole argument is based on a woman having planned it all out in advance so she can do the dirty without protection and then put the baby in a box. If they're that callous and calculated as you're suggesting, then surely they'd ditch the idea of a 9-month pregnancy and have either (a) the morning after pill, or (b) get a pregnancy test every week for 19 weeks and abort the baby before the 20th week.

This already happens and applies to both men and women.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

I didn't argue otherwise. I used that as an example to support the argument I was advancing, so thank you for that

If it's a crime to dump it in a dumpster anonymously then it should also be a crime to dump it in a baby box anonymously.

And if it was, there'd be more babies dumped into dumpsters and die. I don't think you're the kind of person that wants to see an increase in dead babies but that's essentially what you're advocating for in this argument

In addition to that, having baby box organisations in place sometimes avoids babies being left in boxes. I'll quote from Save Haven Baby Boxes. The numbers are particularly enlightening. Not that many rabid unprotected-sex-hungry calculating women in a country of 168m women

The Safe Haven Baby Boxes organization's primary goal is to raise awareness of the Safe Haven Law. Women in crisis can call the national 24-hour hotline and can receive counseling and assistance free of charge. To date, the hotline has received over 8,000 calls from every state in the United States. Safe Haven Baby Boxes has referred over 500 women to crisis pregnancy centers, assisted in 9 adoption referrals, and have had over 132 legal Safe Haven surrenders. Thirty-two babies have been surrendered in our Baby Boxes. Three babies were surrendered directly to firefighters at Safe Haven Baby Box locations.

Since April 2016, when the first box was installed, there have been no dead abandoned infants in the state of Indiana. Proof that our work is succeeding in protecting infants and their mothers in crisis.

So to answer the question of the thread. 100% compassion, 0% cruelty

 

[Bread.]

A: That's a typical misogynistic statement to make

It's not misogynistic to state facts, that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child.

B: You still haven't commented on the irresponsible fathers that helped make the baby in the first place. Whatever the mother is prosecuted for, the father should be too.

Fathers have no rights which is why irresponsible women can murder babies.

If a man and a woman have unprotected sex just for the thrill of it, men get it very easy after. Due to biology women who keep their babies potentially get stuck with unwanted babies for years with lay-about fathers who do nothing or very little to help. Even those that pay child support get it easy. Give women a break.

They should probably keep their legs closed and find better partners if they don't want to be single moms or force their partners to use proper birth control.

C: You're wrong. Abandoning a newborn in the woods would be treated the same as abandoning a 7yr old in the woods

Abandoning a child in a BABY BOX is still abandoning a child. If abandoning it in the woods is a crime then abandoning it on a box should also be a crime . My point.

D: You're right. I agree that fathers should have a say when it comes to abortion but that should be subject to them taking on responsibility for the child. Again though, abortion isn't the issue here

I'm always right

This is verging on laughable. Your whole argument is based on a woman having planned it all out in advance so she can do the dirty without protection and then put the baby in a box. If they're that callous and calculated as you're suggesting, then surely they'd ditch the idea of a 9-month pregnancy and have either (a) the morning after pill, or (b) get a pregnancy test every week for 19 weeks and abort the baby before the 20th week.

Babies arent born in 20 weeks. My debate is about full term babies being dumped. Women are callous enough to call a baby a clump of cells then murder that baby.

The beginning of the debate clearly states unable or unwilling to care for the baby.

That means either or not just or.

I didn't argue otherwise. I used that as an example to support the argument I was advancing, so thank ... you're the kind of ....

So to answer the question of the thread. 100% compassion, 0% cruelty

Okay so you agree it's 100% compassion.

Now explain to me why baby boxes don't exist for 6 year old children where a mother can ANONYMOUSLY dump a 6 year old child, even if done so under "compassion"

 

[Radiation]

 

[Inkandtatts]

It's not misogynistic to state facts, that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child.

^^ That, is not what you said. This is:

À. Women don't get pregnant by looking at a **** with or without a condom. They get pregnant from sexual intercourse. Women control access to sex through consent.

But perhaps your interpretation of what you said shows your lack of respect for women

Fathers have no rights which is why irresponsible women can murder babies.

^ Yes, fathers do have rights and as you've said you're talking about full-term babies I'm going to assume here that you mean women murder babies after birth. I don't know much about infanticide stats in the US but I would argue that a baby box is far better than the murder of a newborn. Again, you overrule your own argument. Unless of course you're advocating for a woman being allowed to murder her baby rather than take it to a baby box?

They should probably keep their legs closed and find better partners if they don't want to be single moms or force their partners to use proper birth control.

That shows a lot about your mindset and I'm not going to grace that comment with any more of a response than that.

Abandoning a child in a BABY BOX is still abandoning a child. If abandoning it in the woods is a crime then abandoning it on a box should also be a crime . My point.

Your point is wrong and misguided. Baby boxes were legislated for with the sole intention of them not being a crime.

Abandoning a baby in the woods exposes them to significant danger. Abandoning a baby in a baby box exposes them to the safety of getting immediate care and hopefully a better life. Your argument fails because you can't distinguish between the two and it would seem your whole attitude is clouded by a hatred towards women.

Babies arent born in 20 weeks. My debate is about full term babies being dumped. Women are callous enough to call a baby a clump of cells then murder that baby.

You say "my debate is about full term babies being dumped" then go on about abortion. You're struggling to stick to your own argument in the same paragraph here. If you're talking about full-term babies, drop all the abortion points.

Now explain to me why baby boxes don't exist for 6 year old children where a mother can ANONYMOUSLY dump a 6 year old child, even if done so under "compassion"

I can try and I'll attempt to do it in a very simplistic way for you.

Caveat: I didn't legislate for baby boxes so I can't give you a definitive answer. I can however give you a best guess answer:

• The average height of a 6-year old is 42-49 inches. I would imaging baby boxes are significantly smaller, so a 6yr old simply would not fit in a baby box
• A 6-year old is capable of using all their limbs so putting them in a baby box (even if one were made to be big enough, in which case it wouldn't be a "baby box" and therefore your argument on this point fails anyway) would be dangerous because said 6-year old could put themselves in harm's way, for example by getting out of the box and running into oncoming traffic

I can't believe you lack the intelligence to have not thought of those points before asking me to explain so I'm left with the conclusion that you must have been thinking of some kind of coffin-type structure for 6-year olds which takes this debate to a whole different level. I'll happily explain in greater detail why that would not be appropriate if that is what you were thinking.


TL;DR: I know my response is quite long but in answer to your request for an explanation, if you prefer not to read my post, you can always reflect on your own words as a a response to your queries to me:

The short answer is because God wills it.

 

[Bread.]

You know I'm not talking about physically putting a 6 year old child in a box I am asking why you can't anonymously abandon a grown child anonymously like a baby box baby.

 

[Inkandtatts]

You know I'm not talking about physically putting a 6 year old child in a box I am asking why you can't anonymously abandon a grown child anonymously like a baby box baby.

Whether in a physical box or not, I've answered that already. I'll take out the bits that reference baby boxes and paraphrase so it's easier:

A 6-year old is capable of using all their limbs so [some sort of baby box equivalent that doesn't involve boxes or sadistic restraints] would be dangerous because said 6-year old could put themselves in harm's way, for example by running into oncoming traffic

Perhaps this was thought about when baby boxes were legislated for and ruled out on the basis of the risk a "grown child" would be exposed to. Perhaps it was never even considered because those that enacted baby boxes were trying to save the lives of babies. I'm not sure. Do you have any record of political debate preceding legislation being enacted like we do here? If so, perhaps that would be worth a read for you to fully understand the thinking of those that enacted it.

You're also derailing your own thread again. The question was whether baby boxes are compassionate or cruel. You're now talking about older kids in a hypothetical situation that's never going to happen

Edited: to remove some words I left in my own quote and want to make sure this is very clear

 

[Bread.]

What does any of this copypasta garbage have to do with

why you can't anonymously abandon a grown child

?

You're also derailing your own thread again. The question was whether baby boxes are compassionate or cruel. You're now talking about older kids in a hypothetical situation that's never going to happen

Actually you're wrong. I've been talking about abandonment of grown children since the beginning of this thread. It's in my Opening post.

But society say it's not okay for you to dump a grown child away.

In most jurisdictions, the act of giving away a grown child without following proper legal procedures is considered illegal and can result in severe consequences for the individuals involved.

 

[Inkandtatts]

What does any of this copypasta garbage have to do with

?


Actually you're wrong. I've been talking about abandonment of grown children since the beginning of this thread. It's in my Opening post.

Would you like to rephrase that so it makes sense because there’s no copy/paste at all there. It’s answering your debate topic. You’re now changing the debate to talk about grown children, despite banging on about your thread being about babies. Has the debate now changed?

Unless, of course, this isn’t a debate at all and it’s just pushing your women-hating agenda. It’s okay to admit that.

Interesting you include a gif of a misogynist on a misogynistic “debate” started by someone with misogynist views but that’s for another thread

 

[TheDifference]

Unless, of course, this isn’t a debate at all and it’s just pushing your women-hating agenda.

View attachment 957970

 

[Bread.]

Would you like to rephrase that so it makes sense because there’s no copy/paste at all there. It’s answering your debate topic. You’re now changing the debate to talk about grown children, despite banging on about your thread being about babies. Has the debate now changed?

Unless, of course, this isn’t a debate at all and it’s just pushing your women-hating agenda. It’s okay to admit that.

Interesting you include a gif of a misogynist on a misogynistic “debate” started by someone with misogynist views but that’s for another thread

You are lacking reading comprehension.

Go re-read the opening post. I even highlighted for you.

It's comparing the welfare, societal acceptance and legalities of :

Mothers who are able to abandon new borns in baby boxes

To

Mothers who aren't able to abandon grown children

If you are too dumb to comprehend that, it is not my problem. But don't tell me I'm changing my own debate.


Here I'll requote if for you?

Why is it societally acceptable to give up your child at birth through means of dumping your baby anonymously through a baby box?

Proponents argue that baby boxes provide a safe and anonymous option for mothers who are unable or unwilling to care for their newborns.

These boxes, often found at hospitals or fire stations, allow parents to surrender their infants without fear of prosecution.

But society say it's not okay for you to dump a grown child away.

In most jurisdictions, the act of giving away a grown child without following proper legal procedures is considered illegal and can result in severe consequences for the individuals involved.

From an ethical perspective, abandoning a child without any consequences undermines the importance of parental responsibility. It sends a message that it is acceptable to simply discard one's responsibilities rather than seeking help.

If child abandonment laws exist to protect the welfare and best interests of children. Then why are these laws ignored when the child is a newborn?

It just enables abandonment without accountability. Change my mind.

 

[Inkandtatts]

You are lacking reading comprehension.

I just struggle with your bad use of grammar, punctuation and inability to frame an argument without being coherent so, yes, fair point - I lack in finding Bread comprehensible.

Perhaps it’s the starch, the carbs, and all the useless air that’s often found in Bread.

If you are too dumb to comprehend that, it is not my problem. But don't tell me I'm changing my own debate

But God Wills it so

It's comparing the welfare, societal acceptance and legalities of :

Mothers who are able to abandon new borns in baby boxes

To

Mothers who aren't able to abandon grown children

So now you seem to be implying that mothers should be allowed to abandon their own children.

You mention welfare but whose welfare? The child/baby or the mother in each scenario? I believe I’ve commented on both

You mention societal acceptance but society accepted baby boxes are okay by electing those that legislated for them and continues to accept it because no legislation has been enacted to revoke the law that enacted them. Same goes for legalities. There’s no debate there. It is what it is until legislators change the law.


If you want a debate, have one, but don’t twist and turn it when the mask of “debate” slips away to expose prejudice.

I’ve noted that you haven’t commented on a debatable point relating to the original topic but instead are resorting to personal attacks and mindless waffle, which was entirely predictable.

 

[Bread.]

That's not what I'm implying at all.

I'm implying baby box mother's should be held to the same standards that mothers who put their children up for adoption have to.


Explain to me the standards behind doing something anonymously. I'll wait.

 

[Inkandtatts]

That's not what I'm implying at all.

I'm implying baby box mother's should be held to the same standards that mothers who put their children up for adoption have to.


Explain to me the standards behind doing something anonymously. I'll wait.

I have but you don’t want to accept that, and that’s absolutely fine. Another “statement” framed as a debate

 

[Bread.]

Telling me that it may save children and its being done "compassionately" is not a standard.

There is no standard to doing something anonymously.

Anonymously shoot someone.
Anonymously steal.
Anonymously harass.
Anonymously dump a baby.

 

[Inkandtatts]

Telling me that it may save children and its being done "compassionately" is not a standard.

There is no standard to doing something anonymously.

Anonymously shoot someone.
Anonymously steal.
Anonymously harass.
Anonymously dump a baby.

This shows your lack of morality and understanding of human empathy more than it adds anything to the debate.

You’ve brought it down to anonymity now, so I’m taking it that anonymity is the issue. Is that right? I’m asking before I waste any time commenting to get a whole load of waffle back

 

[Bread.]

You’ve brought it down to anonymity now, so I’m taking it that anonymity is the issue. Is that right? I’m asking before I waste any time commenting to get a whole load of waffle back

There is no "now".
It's always been.
Go read how many types I wrote -anonymous- on the OP.

The societal acceptance and legality of Anonymity as it relates to dumping babies has been the issue since the beginning of the thread.

But we have a lot of trolls here that like to derail threads and cloud the topic. Or they simply like to lash out in response without reading what I type.

 

[Inkandtatts]

There is no "now".
It's always been.
Go read how many types I wrote -anonymous- on the OP.

The societal acceptance and legality of Anonymity as it relates to dumping babies has been the issue since the beginning of the thread.

But we have a lot of trolls here that like to derail threads and cloud the topic. Or they simply like to lash out in response without reading what I type.

Thanks for clarifying

Anonymously shoot someone.
Anonymously steal.
Anonymously harass.
Anonymously dump a baby.

1-3 are all crimes. 4 isn’t. It’s like comparing apples and pears.

So you’re saying that you’d be okay with “dumping a baby” as long as it isn’t done anonymously?