Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
Roberta
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/nyregion/17MBRF3.html
BROOKLYN: NEWBORN FOUND IN TRASH BIN A baby boy was found in a trash can in Bay
Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can near
301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was in good
condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything. He
was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
Detective Cheryl Cox said. A state law passed in 2000 allows people to take
newborns who would otherwise be abandoned to a hospital, police station or
firehouse without facing prosecution. The state sponsors an information number
for those who need to know where to take such infants: (866) 505-7233. Tina
Kelley (NYT)
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 6, adopted 2/4/98 from China
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: ro...@aol.comnojunk (Roberta)
>Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2002 3:30 PM
>Message-id: <20020417153017...@mb-fn.aol.com>
>
>BTW, this is a very upper-middle-class part of Brooklyn.
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/nyregion/17MBRF3.html
>
>BROOKLYN: NEWBORN FOUND IN TRASH BIN A baby boy was found in a trash can
>in Bay
>Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
>pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can
>near
>301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was
>in good
>condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything.
>He
>was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
Gosh, let's hope they find her soon so she can be spared the horror of losing
her baby to adoption! I'm sure she must be worried sick about him, don't you
think?
Ghoulagirl.
"He went after her like she was made out of ham!"
- From "Best In Show"
Palms2pines
>>in Bay
>>Ridge about 6 p.m. yesterday, the police said. The baby, who weighs seven
>>pounds and is 21 inches long, was found in a box at the top of a trash can
>>near
>>301 100th Street. He was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was
>>in good
>>condition last night. The police do not believe he was wrapped in anything.
>>He
>>was found in a side alley by a resident. The mother has not been found,
>
> Gosh, let's hope they find her soon so she can be spared the horror of
>losing
>her baby to adoption! I'm sure she must be worried sick about him, don't you
>think?
>
>Ghoulagirl.
>
What a cruel assumption, Ghoul! That one true mother probably came out of her
drunken-stoned-crack-whore stupor this morning and declared, "Oh, my! I seem
to have misplaced my child! I wonder where I left him!" How dare you assume
this is a case of heartless abandonment.
P2P
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2002 4:14 PM
>Message-id: <20020417161405...@mb-da.aol.com>
Golly, you're right! I don't know how I failed to consider such a likely
scenario.
How dare you assume
>this is a case of heartless abandonment.
I must have been having one of my silly spells [1] or something.
Ghoulagirl.
[1] Not to be confused with Melinda's posts, which are full of silly spelling.
Johnny
state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having a
cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
--
Johnny
"Roberta" <ro...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020417153017...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Marley Greiner
"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
other
> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
a
> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
Marley
Jackie C
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
>other
>> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
>a
>> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
>
>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>
>Marley
I thought he retired.
Jackie
Ronald Morgan
jda...@newsguy.com wrote on 4/18/02 6:32 PM:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
> <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>> news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
>> other
>>> state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having
>> a
>>> cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
>>
>> Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>>
>> Marley
>
>
> I thought he retired.
>
>
> Jackie
Rust never sleeps...
Ron
Johnny
about what he wants, regardless of how it effects the lives of others.
Now where's that sandblaster.... there's some rust that needs removing...
--
Johnny
"pb..." <woodl...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gcfvbu0j8623l1eaf...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:32:38 -0400, Jackie C <jda...@newsguy.com> calmly
exclaimed:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
><maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote in message
>>news:yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01...
>>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD,
>>>or any other state either. I wonder where Bill Pee was when this
>>>baby was born? Having a cocktail? Consorting with a concubine?
>>>Both?
>>
>>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>>
>>Marley
>
>
>I thought he retired.
>
>Jackie
He stepped down as Pres/CEO of NCFA...perhaps you've seen his sig line?
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
check out www.iavaan.org or www.adoptionmedicalnews.com
Self-explanatory. As Ron has already replied to you, "Rust never sleeps."
pb...
"...yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting Light..."
http://www.ourfm-cfidsworld.org/
http://www.ibar.com/unlocking/contribute.htm
http://helpafghanwomen.com/
Jackie C
<rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I thought he retired.
>>
>>
>> Jackie
>
>Rust never sleeps...
Damn..
Jackie
Jackie C
>In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any other
>> state either.
>
>Define "work."
>
>If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has worked.
>
>You guys are so fucked up over this.
What of the woman who gets the message that it is okay to have her
baby in a closet? That it is okay to not seek medical care for herself
and her baby?
IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
Jackie
Michelle
>In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
>
>> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any other
>> state either.
>
>Define "work."
>
>If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has worked.
>
>You guys are so fucked up over this.
>
>- Don
In theory, yes. The laws are good if they save even one child.
In reality, this is not the case. The laws are not so good because,
in addition to the reasons Marley and Ron (and others) have posted
previously, they are stopgaps.
The problem with stopgaps is that while they are intended as interim
measures to fix a specific problem until a better answer comes along,
in the world of legislation (at whatever level) this rarely happens.
The problem's been fixed, so they move on. And this becomes the way
things work.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving babies. But if we don't do it
right the first time, we're likely to be stuck with the knee-jerk law
for the forseeable future. And as far as safe haven laws are
concerned, IMHO, that's not all too wonderful a thought.
Michelle
Marley Greiner
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-5DAA1F....@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <c0s3cusnhtft7htto...@4ax.com>,
> Michelle <celti...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:52:09 -0700, Don <gimme@a~break.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <yEmv8.56093$G72.48387@sccrnsc01>,
> > > "Johnny" <searchangel@NO_SPAMureach.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The dump laws didn't work in NY, they're not gonna work in MD, or any
other
> > >> state either.
> > >
> > >Define "work."
> > >
> > >If just one woman choose a hospital over a dumpster, the law has
worked.
> > >
> > >You guys are so fucked up over this.
> > >
> > >- Don
> >
> > In theory, yes. The laws are good if they save even one child.
> >
> > In reality, this is not the case. The laws are not so good because,
> > in addition to the reasons Marley and Ron (and others) have posted
> > previously, they are stopgaps.
>
>
> > The problem with stopgaps is that while they are intended as interim
> > measures to fix a specific problem until a better answer comes along,
> > in the world of legislation (at whatever level) this rarely happens.
> > The problem's been fixed, so they move on. And this becomes the way
> > things work.
>
> anyone else cares.
>
> Let's face it, we have some people around here with some pretty
> specialized grievences that are of no interest to the vast majority of
> the population.
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving babies. But if we don't do it
> > right the first time, we're likely to be stuck with the knee-jerk law
> > for the forseeable future. And as far as safe haven laws are
> > concerned, IMHO, that's not all too wonderful a thought.
>
> dozen...out of hundreds of thousands of births during the same period?
>
> Don't you see how stupid this hand wringing looks?
>
> - Don
Since it's our little secret, Don, nobody knows. My summer project is to
figure out the sates sttae by state from what I have, but I don't have all
the cases. These things aren't tracked in most states.
Marley
Marley Greiner
> In article
> <sgnw8.37700$Rw2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Since it's our little secret, Don, nobody knows. My summer project is
to
all
> > the cases. These things aren't tracked in most states.
>
> period.
>
> - Don
Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are being
exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry as cog
in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold to the
black market
Marley
rkbose
> > Okay, but make sure you know how many births occured during the same
> > period.
> >
> > - Don
>
> Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
> abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are being
> exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry as cog
> in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
> anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold to the
> black market
>
> Marley
Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
Rupa
rkbose
>
<re safe haven laws>
> What of the woman who gets the message that it is okay to have her
> baby in a closet? That it is okay to not seek medical care for herself
> and her baby?
>
> IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
> totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
> baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
Consider a person like Tarin. She did not seek care for herself for 8.5
months. It wasn't because of safe-haven laws, AFAIK.
It's true that if women could get free anonymous medical care, there
would be fewer dumpster babies. But that would be pretty much the same
as safe haven laws...the French "Birth under the name of X" or whatever
it's actually called.
(I personally think safe haven laws affect so few that it matters not if
they exist or not.)
Rupa
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/17/2002 3:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Johnny one-note asked in the post:
> I wonder where Bill Pee was when this baby was born? Having a
>cocktail? Consorting with a concubine? Both?
Do you cook up stories about aliens from outer space consorting with Hillary
Clinton for The National Enquirer or other tabloids in your saner moments?
Bill Pierce
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/17/2002 3:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>Actually, I think he's at the NCFA conference.
>
>Marley
Nope, I was out of the city and did not attend the NCFA conference. As you
know, Marley, I stepped down from NCFA and it has always seemed to me that it
was unfair to a new CEO if the former CEO was still around, offering to people
with various motives an excuse to create division.
Your serious comment deserved a factual answer.
Bill Pierce
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/19/2002 10:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>His user name on AOL (Anti-Christ Online) pretty much says it all. It's
>about what he wants, regardless of how it effects the lives of others.
It's right nice of Johnny to give me the opportunity to explain where that user
name came from. Since I enjoy exercising my First Amendment rights but I also
do not want to necessarily associate my views with those of the various
organizations with which I have some sort of affiliations, the signature line
is meant to convey one message only: the comments are those from Pierce, who is
representing only himself. If there is any interest in knowing what I have to
say wearing other "hats," venture over to www.iavaan.org or subscribe to
www.adoptionmedicalnews.com.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
Marley Greiner
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421114203...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Thanks for the clarification. I figured you were there. If I were you it
would be impossible to stay away, but then we know I'm just a snoopy
"adoptee." I was sure, however you, were not out cavorting with a
concubine as suggested. Be glad you weren't here in Indianapolis for the
latest incarnation of Joe Goebels.
Marley
Marley
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/20/2002 7:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
>handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
>
>Rupa
>
Rupa, what Marley is saying is simply a more lucid and grown-up version of poor
Patty's posts. There are those, on a.a and elsewhere, that see the Safe Haven
laws as either something dreamed up by a vast Right-Center-Left Wing
Conspiracty or a plot by Black Market Baby Sellers who will sneak into
hospitals or barge into public social service agencies, sweep away all those
dozens of babies, and auction them off to the higher bidder.
The laws have already saved some babies' lives. The laws have already kept
some women from committing crimes that they would otherwise do prison time for.
These realities really anger those, whether Marley or Ron or their disciples,
or the heads-in-the-sand social work sorority, who want no changes in practices
that have failed babies and women for several decades.
Many of those who oppose these laws have other agendas. And some have no idea
of the many challenges faced by women in the USA, including those of minority
ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who have reasons for needing an
anonymous, legal way to turn their babies over safely to others.
Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them around.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
Johnny
hasn't been seen here on alt.adoption.... and probably will not be anytime
soon. ;-)
--
Johnny
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421113923...@mb-cr.aol.com...
SusanDyne
>Date: 4/21/2002 11:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020421115949...@mb-cr.aol.com>
>Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
>amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them
>around.
Other than people should be encouraged to take responsibility for their
actions. BUT, I do agree -- if ONE baby or one woman is saved, it's enough to
counter everything that is inherently wrong with these laws.
Susan
Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
Ronald Morgan
piercefo...@aol.com wrote on 4/21/02 8:59 AM:
>
> The laws have already saved some babies' lives. The laws have already kept
> some women from committing crimes that they would otherwise do prison time
> for.
> These realities really anger those, whether Marley or Ron or their disciples,
> or the heads-in-the-sand social work sorority, who want no changes in
> practices
> that have failed babies and women for several decades.
Just a note: The US social welfare matrix, including the adoption industry
of which Bill was/is an active participant, has for all its faults and
benefits managed to bring infant abandonment from true epidemic proportions
in the early part of the 1900's to a statistically insignificant trickle
today.
>
> Many of those who oppose these laws have other agendas. And some have no idea
> of the many challenges faced by women in the USA, including those of minority
> ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who have reasons for needing an
> anonymous, legal way to turn their babies over safely to others.
Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's ass, we all know she's a bright light. How
many of the safe haven babies are there due to ethnic, cultural, or
religious reasons? Can you say, or are simply blowing seductive smoke up
Rupa's patootie? I don't see you championing female circumcision, but I
suppose that's next, you ol' cultural relativist you...
>
> Or, in other words, the opposition to Safe Haven laws is not logical. And no
> amount of reasoned discussion on a.a or elsewhere is apt to bring them around.
We don't accept your mantra, that doesn't make us illogical.
Ron
>
> Bill Pierce
> piercefo...@AOL.com
Johnny
them how about rescinding the anonymity fallacy that has failed women and
babies for decades and caused more harm than good in the long run. While it
might have seemed like a good idea at the time it was conceived, given the
fact that there is no basis in any law, anywhere, promises of
confidentiality will not stand up in a court of law. And yet you continue
to avoid the fact that there is no documentation to this promise. So these
women are lied to in order to get their babies to be put up for sale to the
highest bidder. If this is not the case, then why does it cost between 10
and 30 thousand dollars to adopt? Is this the going rate for a human being
now?
--
Johnny
"Pierceforhimself" <piercefo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020421115949...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Kjs668
>Date: 4/20/2002 5:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <54n3cusjc7gnv2oor...@4ax.com>
I totally agree with you.
kj
Rhiannon
It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
considered as a "product".
It seems to me that once the precedent for anonymous relinquishment
has been established, it opens up loopholes for all kinds of nefarious
dealings, that remain *within* the law, and that can be transacted
without consequence to the adults involved.
Rhiannon
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 11:39 AM
>Message-id: <20020421113923...@mb-cr.aol.com>
ROR!
Ghoulagirl.
"He went after her like she was made out of ham!"
- From "Best In Show"
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 1:48 PM
>Message-id: <20020421134820...@mb-fb.aol.com>
>
>> Jackie C jda...@newsguy.com
>>Date: 4/20/2002 5:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <54n3cusjc7gnv2oor...@4ax.com>
snip
>>IMO if women could easily access free unbiased medical care that is
>>totally private from the people she does not want to know about the
>>baby..then there would be far fewer dumpster babies..
>I totally agree with you.
I don't. Do you really think that lack of access to medical care is what's
making girls/women toss their babies into dumpsters like garbage? Or do you
think perhaps it's possible that they see the dumpsters as a means of getting
rid of something they don't want, i.e. their babies? After all, what is the
purpose of a dumpster? Isn't it where you dump your trash?
Kjs668
Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 7:25 PM
Message-id: <20020421192501...@mb-dh.aol.com>
snip
Ghoulagirl.
>>
If a woman will drop her kid off in a dumpster in the first place, what makes
any of us think that she's going to bother heading to the hospital. what if
somebody sees her and tells her mother?? (hey, if you're hormonal and paranoid)
IMO (which is probably wrong...) these women are so fucked up about being
pregnant that I doubt they would have the wherewithal to go to the hospital
rather than a dorm bathroom--or if she's all fucked up on crack--a nearby
garbage can.
As an adoptee, I feel I should have the right to know my genes--even if they do
suck!
As a woman--I think no woman should be ashamed to have an unplanned pregnancy,
no matter how they choose to deal with it--ie: through abortion, relinquishment
or the other.
To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to medical care is
what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're probably right in that
it's just a way for them to get rid of something they don't want.
kj
Pierceforhimself
>Date: 04/21/2002 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Good ole Ron wrote:
>
>Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's---, we all know she's a bright light.
It is possible that some of those on a.a, even those of us who are not
regulars, had some familiarity with other cultures, ethnic groups, religions
and nationalities before the Safe Haven controversy arrived. Some of us, Ron,
had the benefit of undergraduate education in the so-called liberal arts where
we studied rather broadly. While such meanderings may have been viewed by some
as impractical, English majors being a dime a dozen (and other cliches), it
comes in handy later when narrowly-focused and narrow-minded individuals start
spouting things in a context that does not even recognize the pluralistic
nature of the current US of A.
But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
And my guess is that I have as good or better sources that Marley, whose secret
research findings supposedly proving how flawed the Safe Haven laws are we all
await with keen anticipation.
As for your cutting remark about my "championing female circumcision," you know
better.
Relativism isn't my cup of chai, Ron. A desire to respectfully learn more
about others, on the other hand, has long been part of my personality. It led
me far astray in the stacks when I should have been focused more narrowly on
reading for classes, thesis, etc. That's why I enjoy surfing the "stacks" of
the internet today: so much to learn and so little time!
Best personal regards as always, despite our differences.
Bill Pierce
piercefo...@AOL.com
rkbose
> A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
> has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
> considered as a "product".
You know, I can't think you're right.
A child surrendered anonymously is still a human person under the law.
Let us assume that he/she is not adopted (quite a common outcome in
India, BTW). He immediately becomes a ward of the State. He would go
into foster care. Certainly the child would get a name. He would go to
school. If you murdered him, you would be in violation of the law. If he
wished, on reaching adulthood, to make a contract, he would have the
right to do so.
I believe he would be assumed to be a US citizen, as are all babies born
in the US. He would have the right to vote.
Why do you think he'd be a non-person?
Can someone help on the US law in this discussion?
Rupa
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
><< ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 7:25 PM
>Message-id: <20020421192501...@mb-dh.aol.com>
snip
>Do you really think that lack of access to medical care is what's
>making girls/women toss their babies into dumpsters like garbage? Or do
>you
>think perhaps it's possible that they see the dumpsters as a means of getting
>rid of something they don't want, i.e. their babies? After all, what is
>the
>purpose of a dumpster? Isn't it where you dump your trash?
kj replied:
>If a woman will drop her kid off in a dumpster in the first place, what
>makes
>any of us think that she's going to bother heading to the hospital.
Ed Zachary!
what
>if
>somebody sees her and tells her mother?? (hey, if you're hormonal and
paranoid)
>
>IMO (which is probably wrong...) these women are so fucked up about being
>pregnant that I doubt they would have the wherewithal to go to the hospital
>rather than a dorm bathroom--or if she's all fucked up on crack--a nearby
>garbage can.
Yep.
>As an adoptee, I feel I should have the right to know my genes--even if
>they do
>suck!
I agree.
>As a woman--I think no woman should be ashamed to have an unplanned pregnancy,
>no matter how they choose to deal with it--ie: through abortion,
relinquishment
>or the other.
Yikes.
>To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to medical care
>is
>what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're probably right in that
>it's just a way for them to get rid of something they don't want.
I'm glad we agree!
Ronald Morgan
piercefo...@aol.com wrote on 4/21/02 7:32 PM:
> But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
> adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
Not at all, Bill, it just seems that when you're replying to Rupa you get
uncharacteristically multi-cultural. When you have a different audience, for
instance talking on Canadian TV, or to congressional supporters of ICWA,
your tolerance for other cultures evaporates like a mist on a summer
morning.
>
> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
The time for data gathering is before you change the public policy. There
was little reliable data before the Baby Dumps, and precious little to be
learned from them, since they short circuit any attempts to gather data.
> Relativism isn't my cup of chai, Ron. A desire to respectfully learn more
> about others, on the other hand, has long been part of my personality. It led
> me far astray in the stacks when I should have been focused more narrowly on
> reading for classes, thesis, etc. That's why I enjoy surfing the "stacks" of
> the internet today: so much to learn and so little time!
I'm an old autodidact myself. My idea of heaven on earth is Powells Books in
Portland or City Lights here in town.
Ron
Rhiannon
I know what you mean Rupa. I believe you are right about a child being
a person under the law. But if a child's existence is concealed from
the beginning?
I didn't express myself well.
I'm really struggling with this one (as anyone can see!)
What I meant was not "essentially" but "effectively", I think. That
the condition of anonymity (extended to the mother, but passed in to
the child) eludes the rights to which that child is entitled .
Yes, it would be valuable to get some informed legal input to help
sort this out. I'm ignorant and flummoxed.
This is written in haste, so I'll give it more thought and time.
Rhiannon
SusanDyne
>Date: 4/21/2002 11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-FA291F....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <dafc70.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> sarall...@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:
>
>> It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
>> so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
>> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
>> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
>> has claim on no one, nor vice versa. Effectively, the child can be
>> considered as a "product".
>
>
>- Don
>
Hooking on:
Rhiannon, a piece of paper doesn't make a child 'real' of legitimize it's
existence. The fact that the child is alive, safe and receiving care is what's
important. I'd rather have an abandoned live baby than a death certificate.
Marley Greiner
> >Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
> >From: Ronald Morgan rhyz...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 04/21/2002 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> Good ole Ron wrote:
> >
> >Bill, please quit kissing Rupa's---, we all know she's a bright light.
>
> It is possible that some of those on a.a, even those of us who are not
> regulars, had some familiarity with other cultures, ethnic groups,
religions
> and nationalities before the Safe Haven controversy arrived. Some of us,
Ron,
> had the benefit of undergraduate education in the so-called liberal arts
where
> we studied rather broadly. While such meanderings may have been viewed by
some
> as impractical, English majors being a dime a dozen (and other cliches),
it
> comes in handy later when narrowly-focused and narrow-minded individuals
start
> spouting things in a context that does not even recognize the pluralistic
> nature of the current US of A.
>
> But then, you knew that, Ron, and just thought you'd borrow some of pb's
> adolescent semantics to see if you could punch my button.
>
> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
And how to you propose to get that data, Bill, since it's all our little
secret? It's a perfect set-up. No documentation, no accountability.
Marley
Kjs668
>Date: 04/22/2002 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-5D6AB3....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote:
>
>>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
>>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
>> >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're
>> >probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid of
>> >something they don't want.
>>
>> I'm glad we agree!
>
>
>- Don
>
Hey--wait a second there... I'm a sick person just because I don't believe a
new law is going to affect the people it needs to affect?? I think it's awful
that someone could drop a baby off in a dumpster. I also think it's unlikely
that a law is going to change the people who already do that. If somebody is
that hideous, do you really think the Safe Haven Bill is going to change that??
If I thought it would, I would be all for it too.
By the way, Don, I hope you're doing all right after the loss of your mother.
I know it's a crappy thing to go through.
kj
Kjs668
>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
kj
Marley Greiner
"Rhiannon" <sarall...@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.02042...@posting.google.com...
> rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:<3CC22940...@pacific.net.sg>...
> > Marley Greiner wrote:
> > >
> > > "Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Okay, but make sure you know how many births occured during the same
> > > > period.
> > > >
> > > > - Don
> > >
> > > Don, that's the point. These laws aren't even needed . The number or
> > > abandonments and infanticides is miniscule The ones that do occur are
being
> > > exploited as an "epidemic" by certain parts of the adoption industry
as cog
> > > in their own secret/closed adoption agenda. Undocumented infants put
> > > anonymous relinquishment into the law. Undocumented infants are gold
to the
> > > black market
> > >
> > > Marley
> >
> > Marley, this is going over my head. Can you spell it out? How are a
> > handful of anonymous infants going to be gold to anyone?
> >
> > Rupa
>
> It's not the miniscule number of anonymous infants that disturbs me,
> so much as the legal precedent that these laws create.
A non-adopted friend of mine refers to safe havens as The Stork Preservation
Act. These laws advocate a state of legal limbo--a non-documented young
human--a product of the state--with no biological ties or identity, to be be
distributed, manipulated, and dispersed by these state at it's leisure. In
Maryland (soon) and NY there is absolutely no accountability or liability.
A parent need only turn the newborn over to a "responsible person" who is
turn is expected to take it to a drop-off point. Neither parent nor
designated dumper is liable for legal or physical damage caused the infant.
While nearly ever state's laws contain a clause about abuse, how would abuse
be prosecuted if the transaction is anonymous? (And no, Don, this is a big
issue. This was one of the very first questions asked by the Ohio
Legislature two years ago--this is a real concern--along with a second
concern of "relinquishment of dead babies) Abuse is not always visible. If
an undocumented baby is turned over to a "responsible person" and is
abused-- who's to prove who did what? Whenever this question was brought
up--usually by supporters--the answer was, "Don't worry about it. We'll
come up with something later."
> A child surrendered anonymously is essentially a "non-person",
> without identity or entitlement to legal rights until such a time as
> he/she becomes "legitimized" by adoption. Until that time, the child
> has claim on no one, nor vice versa.
The baby has as much "rigihts" as anybody else--as far as a "right" exists,
which it does only in theory.
Effectively, the child can be
> considered as a "product".
> It seems to me that once the precedent for anonymous relinquishment
> has been established, it opens up loopholes for all kinds of nefarious
> dealings, that remain *within* the law, and that can be transacted
> without consequence to the adults involved.
The baby certainly is a product; a short supply product with a huge consumer
market out there ready to grab it up. Kind of like the Roller Ball lottery.
With every baby that is abandoned illegally or legally though a safe
haven, hospitals complain that the phones ring off the hook with paps
volunteering to take the product off its hands. Hospitals are not amused,
and always issue a statement reminding people that they simply can't drop by
the hospital and pick up a baby.; that there is such a thing as an adoption
system.
Babies are a consumable, like Spam. Any baby will do as long as we get one.
Marley
>
> Rhiannon
Marley Greiner
> In article <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote:
>
> >From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
> >Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
> >Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
> > >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think you're
> > >probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid of
> > >something they don't want.
> >
> > I'm glad we agree!
>
>
> - Don
Gee, Don, that's what all the legal and psychiatric, and medical studies
point to. (speaking of the US).
Marley
Ronald Morgan
gimme@a~break.net wrote on 4/21/02 11:29 PM:
> In article <B8E8ECE0.55E3%rhyz...@earthlink.net>,
> Ronald Morgan <rhyz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Truth to tell, Ron, I don't think there are any reliable data yet on the
>>> reasons why women are choosing to use Safe Haven laws.
>>
>> The time for data gathering is before you change the public policy. There
>> was little reliable data before the Baby Dumps, and precious little to be
>> learned from them, since they short circuit any attempts to gather data.
>
> Get real, and use some common sense, Ron.
You get real Don.
>
> First of all, you can't do a double blind study on this, so you're never
> going to get truly scientific data.
Well, lets just throw all the social sciences out the window, since we can't
get truly scientific data on human behaviors.
Second, it just makes sense to give
> women additional options to safely surrender a child...only a person
> with a wacky agenda would argue otherwise, when the alternative for the
> child is a dumpster.
Only someone with their own wacky agenda would limit the options to
anonymous baby dumps or dumpsters, based only on their unresearched opinion.
> - Don
Ronald Morgan
Marley Greiner at maddog...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 4/22/02 7:39 AM:
Don doesn't give a fuck about studies. He gets his data from TV websites.
Ron
>
> Marley
>
>
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>Message-id: <20020422101606...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>>Date: 04/22/2002 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
snip
>> I'm glad we agree!
>Me too! I'd hate to have to come over there and get you. (I wouldn't
>really,
>so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
Phew, THAT'S a relief - I know they already have a lot to do what with their
investigation into Kansas adoption laws. I understand it's a top priority for
them, and I wouldn't want to take valuable resources away from it.
Kjs668
>Message-id: <20020422114422...@mb-ch.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Attn. Marley: baby dumped in Brooklyn, NY, from NY Times
>>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668)
>>Date: 4/22/02 10:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20020422101606...@mb-fi.aol.com>
>
>>>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>>>Date: 04/22/2002 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <20020422001548...@mb-mq.aol.com>
>
>snip
>
>>> I'm glad we agree!
>
>>Me too! I'd hate to have to come over there and get you. (I wouldn't
>>really,
>>so you don't have to call the threat into the UN.)
>
> Phew, THAT'S a relief - I know they already have a lot to do what with
>their
>investigation into Kansas adoption laws. I understand it's a top priority
>for
>them, and I wouldn't want to take valuable resources away from it.
>
>
kj
Kjs668
>Date: 04/22/2002 12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gimme-DEC7E8....@corp.supernews.com>
>
>In article <20020422101341...@mb-fi.aol.com>,>> >Date: 04/22/2002 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id:
>> >
>> >>From: kjs...@aol.com (Kjs668) Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2002 10:32 PM
>> >>Message-id: <20020421223228...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>> >
>> >> >To answer your question--I don't think that lack of access to
>> >> >medical care is what makes girls dump their babies. I think
>> >> >you're probably right in that it's just a way for them to get rid
>> >> >of something they don't want.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >- Don
>> >
>> believe a new law is going to affect the people it needs to affect??
>> I think it's awful that someone could drop a baby off in a dumpster.
>> I also think it's unlikely that a law is going to change the people
>> who already do that. If somebody is that hideous, do you really
>> think the Safe Haven Bill is going to change that??
>
>of panic, in most situations. If there was a better choice, I think that
>some women would take it.
>
You're may be right--in fact, I hope you are. I still think that most women who
toss babies in a dumpster or give birth in a dorm bathroom will do just that no
matter what laws are passed. I don't think it's right, but I think that is
what our society has turned into.
>> If I thought it would, I would be all for it too.
>
>It won't save EVERY baby, everyone acknowedges that. But what's wrong
>with saving the ones that can be saved with a system like this in place?
>
If it does work the way it is supposed to work, then that would be wonderful.
If a baby who would have ended up in a dumpster goes to a loving home... that
would be great. I still think this bill won't affect most of the people it
should. I hope it does, though. I sincerely do.
kj
Johnny
dump(ster) law is not something most would use if they were rational to
begin with. Accountability for ones actions is more important, than
teaching people they can hide their mistakes.
--
Johnny
"Don" <gimme@a~break.net> wrote in message
news:gimme-DEC7E8....@corp.supernews.com...
Usually, I don't think it's done to be "hideous." I think it's done out
of panic, in most situations. If there was a better choice, I think that
some women would take it.
- Don