 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / January 2005IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favor Couple hope to adopt girl brought to hospital
ILLINOIS http://www.dailyherald.com/kane/main_story.asp?intID=3837399 State law worked in baby's favor Couple hope to adopt girl brought to hospital By Tom O'Konowitz Daily Herald Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005 Even though the newborn's mother gave her up almost immediately, turning her over to an Elgin hospital last weekend, not a day has gone by that the baby wasn't loved. Doctors, nurses and other employees at Provena St. Joseph Hospital quickly fell in love with the infant girl, who was in good health after a friend of her mother dropped her off there Sunday. Closely watched and cared for since, the little girl was showered with gifts from hospital workers and well-wishers who stopped by after reading her story in the newspaper. And then on Wednesday, in what hospital officials are calling both a happy ending and a happy beginning, the baby's likely adoptive parents arrived at Provena St. Joseph to take their new daughter home. "There wasn't a dry eye in the place," said Margo Schafer, a spokeswoman for the hospital. "This is a baby that is so wanted and so loved. She's a beautiful baby, and now she has a beautiful home." The tiny girl was dropped off at the hospital on Elgin's west side because her birth mother apparently couldn't take care of her. She used the 3-year-old state law that allows new mothers to relinquish custody of their babies - no questions asked - within the first 72 hours of life. Supporters of the law say the Elgin baby's mother did the loving thing by safely getting her to the hospital instead of abandoning her, and that this case is a perfect example of why the law can do such good for the newborns. "It's so wonderful to see this law is working," Schafer said. "Her mother did this so (her daughter) could have a better life. And her adoptive parents are really grateful." Dawn Geras, president of Chicago-based Save Abandoned Babies Foundation, this week said she just wishes more new parents knew about the law so more babies could be saved. Geras said she's hoping to do more in the coming months to raise awareness of the safe-haven law. Under the Illinois Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act, which was passed in 2001, Provena St. Joseph officials on Sunday called the state Department of Children and Family Services about the baby. That agency contacted the licensed adoption agency that was next in the rotation to handle a case. That was Wheaton-based Evangelical Child and Family Agency, which called a pair of prospective adoptive parents, who wish to remain anonymous at least until the adoption is finalized, so they could take the newborn home. They officially are acting as foster parents, but in about six months the adoption could be finalized. "The parents are ecstatic," said Kathleen Hogan Morrison, a Chicago adoption attorney representing the parents who took home the Elgin baby. "I know that this law can work. So far in this case it appears that the law is working, and the prospective adoptive parents are anxiously awaiting their right to adopt." The birth mother potentially has up to 60 days to reclaim her baby, under the law. Initially called Janice Rose by hospital officials, she was given a new name by her new parents. They've been trying for years to adopt a baby, and the one they were united with this week would be their first. Baby: Newborn receives many gifts while at hospital. quote snipped "Even though the newborn's mother gave her up almost immediately, turning her over to an Elgin hospital last weekend, not a day has gone by that the baby wasn't loved. Doctors, nurses and other employees at Provena St. Joseph Hospital quickly fell in love with the infant girl, who was in good health after a friend of her mother dropped her off there Sunday. Closely watched and cared for since, the little girl was showered with gifts from hospital workers and well-wishers who stopped by after reading her story in the newspaper. " This makes me feel really good reading this. That is the essence of the Safe Haven laws. Little is really done to remedy the underlying problems, but these small successes enable us to move on to other things and ignore the larger problems - like adequate prenatal care nad counselling so that young mothers do not have to abandon their children in the middle of the night. Doug Thomas OK...bear with me...I still be trying to wrap my ittie bittie head around this whole SH issue. The following occurred to me last night: Why aren't SH laws illegal? They make something that is illegal non-prosecutable. I mean if a parent were to drop off their 10-yr old at a hospital saying, "I can't take care of him/her" and then just walked away, it would be called child abandonment, and the authorities would search for and prosecute said parent. How can you have this double standard and then say it has nothing to do with procuring infants for adoption? KL > OK...bear with me...I still be trying to wrap my ittie bittie head > around this whole SH issue. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > KL Very good question. I've heard this question before, but I've never heard an answer. In ND the age limit is 1-year. Beloved mentioned right here on aa that he'd like to see the age eventually bumped up 2-3 years. Of course, a 10 year old is unadoptable and would actually know his name and history. BTW, a couple Ohio adoption attorneys have said that if the Ohio law were challenged it would probably be thrown out. Of course, you have to have somebody willing to challenge it to start with. There are people who would, but the problem is their standing. This Illinois Baby Janice Rose case is particularly pernicious she was dropped off by a 3rd person, which is not permitted by the IL SH law. But who cares? Right? Prosecutors practice discretion--but before the prosecutor can do that, the police need to investigate this drop-off as a child abandonment, not a SH. Marley > > OK...bear with me...I still be trying to wrap my ittie bittie head > > around this whole SH issue. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Marley I think this is just absolutely sickening...I mean I am really nauseous about it. And to make it worse is that it makes Jean and Mike happy! KL Be careful, you are making sense and there are forces at work that really don't want to hear that. By the way, thank you! Raymond > The following occurred to me last night: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > KL > Be careful, you are making sense and there are forces at work that really > don't want to hear that. By the way, thank you! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> KL Anytime :) KL >OK...bear with me...I still be trying to wrap my ittie bittie head >around this whole SH issue. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >KL First, SH laws are simply an exception to the child abandonment laws: if you do x then you can not be prosecuted for y, or, x is simply no longer y, it's z. It may seem like a speech by the Red Queen but it is the way it works legally. As to having nothing to do with adoption, adoption is just an incidental effect of the law. The child may end up in lifetime foster care or institutionalized, depending on the circumstances/ The primary and principally desired effect, of course, is the saving of just one life. Or so we're told. No one ever said that an entire body of law had to, or even could, make sense. Those who write the laws often care little for consistency and those who vote for them rarely have any sense of the existing legal context. J. "The Bible is the most shoplifted book in the United States." That Book of Perfectly Useless Information. Harper Collins (2004) I wonder what the a-parents will tell this child as she grows older. Will they attempt to pretend she was "natural"? What happens when she figures out she was adopted? "Well, ummm, your mother just dumped you off and left. No, she didn't leave any information or anything. Nope, no one knows who she was or anything. I sure hope there is nothing in your family medical history that is too awful and, gee, why would you want to know anything about your bio-roots. Don't you love us?" It's been a long week, a full moon week, and this is just what I needed to see. NOT. Raymond > State law worked in baby's favor Couple hope to adopt girl brought to > hospital > By Tom O'Konowitz Daily Herald Staff Writer > Friday, January 21, 2005 > I wonder what the a-parents will tell this child as she grows older. Will > they attempt to pretend she was "natural"? What happens when she figures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that is too awful and, gee, why would you want to know anything about your > bio-roots. Don't you love us?" They'll probably tell her what a-parents in closed situations generally have to say. We don't know why your b-mother couldn't keep you. She loved you enough to make sure you were safe, and she knew you would have a family that could look after you. I'm sorry we know nothing about your medical history or your roots, but perhaps in a few years, the doctors can look at your DNA and give you a pretty good idea. That's about it. What else can we say? Rupa > They'll probably tell her what a-parents in closed situations generally > have to say. We don't know why your b-mother couldn't keep you. She [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rupa Rupa: This is not about a-parents and I hope I did not give that impression. A-parents, in my book, are the best! Mine certainly were. This is about a movement to seperate adoptees-to-be from thier bio-roots by pretending to be solely concerned with saving the lives of unwanted new borns and thus making it okay to simply dump the little person off at some approved site with no questions asked. I can't help but wonder how many babies will be dumped by third parties. It is not inconceivable that a distraught parent might take the child of a daughter off to a dump site. Friends, mid-wives, social workers and any number of other "concerned"person might take it upon themselves to do "what is best" for the mother who could simply be told her baby had died. No questions asked. The more I roll this around in my head, the more it seems that a monster has been created. I realize that there are those who feel those bio roots really are not all that important and might actually interfere with the child bonding with his/her a-parents. I am here to tell you from personal experience that they are important and they do not interfere with bonding. To all you a-parents, my hat is off to you which is no small matter as it is currently 22 below zero F here. Raymond I can't help but wonder how many babies will be dumped by > third parties. It is not inconceivable that a distraught parent might take > the child of a daughter off to a dump site. Friends, mid-wives, social > workers and any number of other "concerned"person might take it upon > themselves to do "what is best" for the mother who could simply be told her > baby had died. No questions asked. I think this is a real risk. If she gives birth with others present. I think that's why many of these laws are written so that only the b-parents can surrender the child. Of course, next question is, how do they prove they are the b-parents? The more I roll this around in my head, > the more it seems that a monster has been created. I realize that there are > those who feel those bio roots really are not all that important and might > actually interfere with the child bonding with his/her a-parents. I am here > to tell you from personal experience that they are important and they do not > interfere with bonding. To all you a-parents, my hat is off to you which is > no small matter as it is currently 22 below zero F here. That's nice of you, there are a bunch of us here. Many of us are in closed situations not because of fears about bonding, but because that's how it is. I would have no problems with my a-kid looking for the b-folks, and would be happy to help to the extent I can. But the fact is, closed adoptions still exist; and parents in those situations may know nothing more than the parents of kids who were SH'd. Rupa Rupa wrote: "They'll probably tell her what a-parents in closed situations generally have to say. We don't know why your b-mother couldn't keep you. She loved you enough to make sure you were safe, and she knew you would have a family that could look after you. I'm sorry we know nothing about your medical history or your roots, but perhaps in a few years, the doctors can look at your DNA and give you a pretty good idea. That's about it. What else can we say?" I don't know about other adoptees but the token lines, maybe someday your DNA will tell you something (sure, right), or "she loved you enough" from people that did not know my birthmom or her situation have always irritated me, so my advice would be to stick with "I'm sorry, I know nothing but I love you". Kathy J >Rupa wrote: "They'll probably tell her what a-parents in closed >situations generally have to say. We don't know why your b-mother [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes, I'm not keen on the "she loved you enough" fairytale unless there is some very real evidence to prove that it is something more than a fairytale. In that situation I would have far preferred to have grown up being told the truth if my a-parents had known nothing. Until everyone in the world has their DNA profile held on a database somewhere along with other information about them there is a limit to what DNA can reveal, that's going to be the case for a long time to come. In any case I certainly hope the scenario above is not typical of closed adoption in the USA. Even when adoptions are closed here adoptive parents are given as much information as possible about the birth family and have always been given the child's original name as it appears on the birth certificate. Here, a tremendous effort is made to record as much information as possible for foundlings about where they were found by whom and about what efforts were made to find their mothers. Sometimes enough information for them to try to search for themselves when they grow up. Little chance of that in SH-land as nothing much will have been recorded other than " 'a friend' of your mother dumped you at the local hospital, nobody bothered to get any details '. Oh... your mother? No idea what happened to her, might have bled to death or died of post-partem infection who knows? And your father, what did he think about it all? What on earth do you want to know about your father for? Robin > Yes, I'm not keen on the "she loved you enough" fairytale unless there > is some very real evidence to prove that it is something more than a > fairytale. Well, if someone has been TPR'd, then perhaps it would be a fairytale (though it might not be). In the case of an SH, at the very least we can say that someone has seen to getting the baby somewhere safe. If it's the mother, then if not "she loved you enough" it would be "she was responsible enough." In the case of a closed adoption, in the US, it would be "she loved you enough to relinquish you through proper channels and through an agency that would find you a family." In that situation I would have far preferred to have grown up > being told the truth if my a-parents had known nothing. So what did they tell you? And was it a lie, or was your a-dad himself deceived? >Until everyone > in the world has their DNA profile held on a database somewhere along > with other information about them there is a limit to what DNA can > reveal, that's going to be the case for a long time to come. I typed a long response to this, but Google ate it. Anyway, in short: DNA analysis is soon (20-30 years) going to be able to tell you pretty much everything a medical history could, and more. It's going to be able to identify genetic risk factors for most diseases that are known to have genetic risk factors. They already have traced breast cancer and even Parkinsons. They will also be able to give a sense of ethnicity, which may be more important in the US melting pot than in the UK. Unless there's a comprehensive DNA database, it won't be able to tell your genetic parents. > In any case I certainly hope the scenario above is not typical of closed > adoption in the USA. Even when adoptions are closed here adoptive > parents are given as much information as possible about the birth family > and have always been given the child's original name as it appears on > the birth certificate. I don't know about the US and UK; in India we were told nothing at all. Many adoptees in India are foundlings. Ours wasn't; but we still were not given any names. Indian babies don't necessarily have birth certs, and we didn't get one for our kid. > Here, a tremendous effort is made to record as much information as > possible for foundlings about where they were found by whom and about > what efforts were made to find their mothers. Sometimes enough > information for them to try to search for themselves when they grow up. > Little chance of that in SH-land as nothing much will have been recorded > other than " 'a friend' of your mother dumped you at the local > hospital, nobody bothered to get any details '. "Someone who said she was a friend of your mother left you at XYZ Hospital, which was designated a Safe Haven. She made sure you were safe. It was forbidden by law to get any further details." >Oh... your mother? No > idea what happened to her, might have bled to death or died of > post-partem infection who knows? "Or got hit by a car, or killed by lightning, or died of cancer. Or she might still be alive, and flourishing." "I'm not sure how you could go about tracing her, but here's the date you were left at the hospital, and you were an estimated 24 hours old. So most likely you were born on the xxth of Month, Year. I'd guess that the birth was within a 50-mile radius of the Hospital. You could try putting an ad in the local papers there, and on the local e-bulletin boards. Who knows, maybe something will come up?" >And your father, what did he think > about it all? What on earth do you want to know about your father fo "We know nothing at all about your father, except what you learned from the DNA readout. But that does happen to a lot of people, not just adoptees, you know." Rupa >> Yes, I'm not keen on the fairytale unless there is >> some very real evidence to prove that it is something more than a fairytale. > Well, if someone has been TPR'd, then perhaps it would be a fairytale (though > it might not be). My mother was not TPR'd but it isn't clear enough what her feeling about me were for anyone to have used "she loved you enough" story. My adoption was contrary to her original wishes that I be adopted by her friends. I would still have regarded it as patronising fairytale if anyone had used and I certainly wouldn't have been very grateful when I did find out the truth. That kind of story is only really usable these days with foundlings whose abandoner has left them somewhere safe. > In the case of an SH, at the very least we can say that someone has seen to > getting the baby somewhere safe. If it's the mother, then if not "she loved [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to relinquish you through proper channels and through an agency that would > find you a family." Do US adoptees get proper look at their own adoption files if they want it? It wouldn't be a sensible thing to spin those yarns to child here unless you knew then to be true. What would you tell a child who was found disguised in carriers bag in a deep ditch under a hedge in mid January who was luckily enough to be found by a dog that was being walked in the remote area concerned. You couldn't lie to her as sometime she is going to be able to read all about it at the newspaper archive. Would you as an adopter be told enough in the US to in that situation >> In that situation I would have far preferred to have grown up being told the >> truth if my a-parents had known nothing. > So what did they tell you? And was it a lie, or was your a-dad himself > deceived? He wasn't told very much, what he was told was garbled by the adoption worker and further embellished by adoptive mother's fantasies. >> Until everyone in the world has their DNA profile held on a database >> somewhere along with other information about them there is a limit to what >> DNA can reveal, that's going to be the case for a long time to come. > I typed a long response to this, but Google ate it. Anyway, in short: DNA > analysis is soon (20-30 years) going to be able to tell you pretty much > everything a medical history could, and more. Our regular geneticist on the UK adoption group has it that it might take a bit longer than that. > It's going to be able to identify genetic risk factors for most diseases that > are known to have genetic risk factors. They already have traced breast cancer > and even Parkinsons. > They will also be able to give a sense of ethnicity, which may be more > important in the US melting pot than in the UK. I should think it is important everywhere the UK is now a very racial diverse country. Within my wider family we have German, Italian, Irish, two American or Canadian (the later two of unknown ethnic origin, but one French by the sound of his name) That is if my mother was telling the truth about the fathers of her other children. My mother may have had fairly diverse roots herself. I am fairly sure there are some east European Jewish links in my own line that are responsible in part for my Crohn's disease which has complex multi-factorial genetic disposition through HLA class II & III alleles common amongst the Jewish population, apart form which I have some facial features which would indicate that and some anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see what a DNA profile indicates. > Unless there's a comprehensive DNA database, it won't be able to tell your > genetic parents. >> In any case I certainly hope the scenario above is not typical of closed >> adoption in the USA. Even when adoptions are closed here adoptive parents are >> given as much information as possible about the birth family and have always >> been given the child's original name as it appears on the birth certificate. > I don't know about the US and UK; in India we were told nothing at all. Many > adoptees in India are foundlings. Ours wasn't; but we still were not given any > names. Indian babies don't necessarily have birth certs, and we didn't get one > for our kid. I hope that is no longer the case in the US which is the main place that we are discussing in this thread. >> Here, a tremendous effort is made to record as much information as possible >> for foundlings about where they were found by whom and about what efforts >> were made to find their mothers. Sometimes enough information for them to try >> to search for themselves when they grow up. Little chance of that in SH-land >> as nothing much will have been recorded other than " 'a friend' of your >> mother dumped you at the local hospital, nobody bothered to get any details'. > "Someone who said she was a friend of your mother left you at XYZ Hospital, > which was designated a Safe Haven. She made sure you were safe. It was > forbidden by law to get any further details." I think if you were the adoptee concerned you'd be pretty pissed off with that law wouldn't you? >> Oh... your mother? No idea what happened to her, might have bled to death or >> died of post-partem infection who knows? > "Or got hit by a car, or killed by lightning, or died of cancer. Or she might > still be alive, and flourishing." > "I'm not sure how you could go about tracing her, but here's the date you were > left at the hospital, and you were an estimated 24 hours old. So most likely > you were born on the xxth of Month, Year. I'd guess that the birth was within > a 50-mile radius of the Hospital. You could try putting an ad in the local > papers there, and on the local e-bulletin boards. Who knows, maybe something > will come up?" That's pretty much what folks here do in that situation. We're trying to get an official register and an amnesty for mothers who abandoned their babies in the past. >> And your father, what did he think about it all? What on earth do you want >> to know about your father for > "We know nothing at all about your father, except what you learned from the > DNA readout. But that does happen to a lot of people, not just adoptees, you > know." Yep but there's heck of lot more people that it doesn't happen to, and those that it does often have fathers who have chosen not to be involved. If were left at an SH how would I know whether my father had any say at all in my fate? Robin Snip, snip, snip > Do US adoptees get proper look at their own adoption files if they want > it? Snip, snip, snippity snip.. Robin: Each of our 50 states has thier own laws dealing with adoptions and adoption records. Some, such as New Hampshire, are opened to the adoptee. Many states such as the one in which I was born and the one in which I was abandoned and later adopted have sealed records and nothing short of a nuclear warhead can get them loose. Hopefully more states will follow the New Hampshire example since it appears the world has not stop spinning since those adoptees got thier records. May I assume that adoption laws are managed at the national level in the UK? Raymond >Snip, snip, snip > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > No that would be a very false assumption, for a start "the UK" is four different countries, England & Wales have much the same law on adoption in wales it is printed in Welsh as well English and different bodies oversee its administration. Scotland and N Ireland are separate legal jurisdictions with their own laws on adoption. In England access to records other than the original birth certificate is matter for the agency holding those records. There is a small body of case law which makes it clear that an agency can not simply refuse point blank. But at the moment there is no real guidance on what they can and can not divulge. Its a post-code lottery, though the regulations are supposed to be changing in September but I'm yet to see the latest draft. Robin It sounds like local officials have a fair bit of say as to who has access to what. Still, having four jurisdicitons is simpler (I would think) than 50+. Raymond > No that would be a very false assumption, for a start "the UK" is four > different countries, England & Wales have much the same law on adoption in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Robin Rupa wrote: >In the case of an SH, at the very least we can say that someone has >seen to getting the baby somewhere safe. If it's the mother, then if >not "she loved you enough" it would be "she was responsible enough." >In the case of a closed adoption, in the US, it would be "she loved you >enough to relinquish you through proper channels and through an agency >that would find you a family. Hopefully, the majority of civilized humans would do that, make sure a helpless being is safe, but it does not equate to love. Love is much more IMO. >>>I typed a long response to this, but Google ate it. Anyway, in short: DNA analysis is soon (20-30 years) going to be able to tell you pretty much everything a medical history could, and more. It's going to be able to identify genetic risk factors for most diseases that are known to have genetic risk factors. They already have traced breast cancer and even Parkinsons.<<< Lets see, that would put me around age 70 or 80, yikes. One very important thing that analysis cannot tell a person is how disease is managed, how family members have reacted to treatments (sometime the reaction to treatment is more dangerous than the disease itself). What to look for. What has worked and what hasn't. Communication. This is not just for adoptive families but all families. Gilda Radner never knew that an older family member also had a similiar cancer as herself. No one talked about it. Had she been aware, she might have insisted on earlier testing. Another problem regarding DNA is do we really want an official documented analysis? What would insurance companies do with our information? >I'm not sure how you could go about tracing her, but here's the date >you were left at the hospital, and you were an estimated 24 hours old. >So most likely you were born on the xxth of Month, Year. I'd guess that >the birth was within a 50-mile radius of the Hospital. You could try >putting an ad in the local papers there, and on the local e-bulletin >boards. Who knows, maybe something will come up?" This (the search) is a very humbling, sometimes exasperating and humilitating experience but it is so important to many adoptees, that we do it. "Are you my mother?" Kathy J > Rupa wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > helpless being is safe, but it does not equate to love. Love is much > more IMO. I would agree that it is more in the context of a relationship -- but what is love in the context of a relationship that never really happened? When the b-mom saw a tiny infant for a few hours or days before giving it up? Love is making sure the baby is safe and cared-for. If she continues to think of it for years afterward -- as I think many mothers do -- she is not thinking of the person who that baby has become, but of the baby and, perhaps, the person she imagines the baby has become.The idea, not the individual. If they meet again, they have a starting point for the relationship - but it *is* a new relationship. > >>>I typed a long response to this, but Google ate it. Anyway, in > short: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lets see, that would put me around age 70 or 80, yikes. I think this one's for our kids, not for us. One very > important thing that analysis cannot tell a person is how disease is > managed, how family members have reacted to treatments (sometime the > reaction to treatment is more dangerous than the disease itself). What > to look for. What has worked and what hasn't. Communication. This is > not just for adoptive families but all families. I wonder how much of this is communicated. I have some idea for my immediate family, but none for my grandparents. There's also a matter of time. Treatments change over time. Some day, they can look at a gene-map and say, this drug will be more effective for you than the other drug... Gilda Radner never > knew that an older family member also had a similiar cancer as herself. > No one talked about it. Had she been aware, she might have insisted > on earlier testing. Does one really? Or does one say, Damn, I really should have those tests done, I'll get round to it. Or, I'd like those tests but I don't think my insurance will cover it. Another problem regarding DNA is do we really want > an official documented analysis? What would insurance companies do > with our information? Good question. Very good question. I am hoping this will be sorted before the kind of read I speak of becomes common. Universal single-payer healthcare. > This (the search) is a very humbling, sometimes exasperating and > humilitating experience but it is so important to many adoptees, that > we do it. "Are you my mother?" Kathy J Best wishes to all who search. Rupa > > Rupa wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > they can look at a gene-map and say, this drug will be more effective > for you than the other drug... They are already doing this in regards to chemotherapy for colon cancer in some instances. > Gilda Radner never > > knew that an older family member also had a similiar cancer as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does one really? Lots do, others do the following. Don't you think there are people who are vigiliant about their health? Or does one say, Damn, I really should have those > tests done, I'll get round to it. Or, I'd like those tests but I don't > think my insurance will cover it. Lots of times it is those peple who end of kicking themselves in the a** when something is discovered that could have been cured had it been caught earlier. Kathy 1 > Lots of times it is those peple who end of kicking themselves in the a** > when something is discovered that could have been cured had it been caught > earlier. So true. Rupa > Rupa wrote: "They'll probably tell her what a-parents in closed > situations generally have to say. We don't know why your b-mother [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > always irritated me, so my advice would be to stick with "I'm sorry, I > know nothing but I love you". Kathy J I don't know. Surely making sure a baby is safe is evidence of responsibility, at least, if not actually of love. As for the DNA -- it's close. It won't tell you everything, but they've found markers for breast cancer risk, they're found markers for several genetic diseases, they've even found a marker that explains some cases of Parkinson's. The other area there's been quite a lot done is in the area of ethnicity. There have been cases where researchers can look at a person's DNA and say things like: the mitochondrial DNA seems to come from West Coast of Africa and there are traces of Irish and French ancestry in the paternal DNA. I would guess that in about 20-30 years, a read-out of DNA will disclose quite a lot about (a) disease risk and (b) ethnicity. I am not suggesting that they will be able to look at DNA and say something like, oh yes, you're the son of Jane Doe and John Smith. That would require a universal DNA database, and some amazing matching software. Rupa For many in this era, there is still that yearning to know from whom brought us into this world. I know you are not talking about us however we know how it is, we have been there and personally thats I can speak from. As for speculation about the next generation of course I could be wrong. Maybe your correct Rupa, they won't have that need and their DNA printout will be plenty enough. Kathy J > For many in this era, there is still that yearning to know from whom > brought us into this world. I know you are not talking about us > however we know how it is, we have been there and personally thats I > can speak from. As for speculation about the next generation of course > I could be wrong. Maybe your correct Rupa, they won't have that need > and their DNA printout will be plenty enough. Kathy J Actually, I wasn't suggesting they would have the desire to know who their birth-parents were. They may well have that need, and a DNA database won't answer it unless it's extensive and identified by individual. But they may be able to get that other stuff. Rupa If the belief is that that generation of relinquished persons will have the desire to know who their birth-parents are, then why support safe havens which make it extreemly difficult if not impossible for them to find the answers they need when there are other options? Kathy J > If the belief is that that generation of relinquished persons will have > the desire to know who their birth-parents are, then why support safe > havens which make it extreemly difficult if not impossible for them to > find the answers they need when there are other options? Kathy J Actually, I'm neutral on SHs. I join in discussions on them, but I feel they affect too small a number of people to have a major impact either way -- saving babies, or losing histories. But I think those who support SHs see it as a substitute for parking lot and dumpster disposal, where the baby loses its history and possibly its health and/or its life. And those who oppose see it as a tempting subsitute for a formal relinquishment, where at least the b-family details are on record. Rupa > > If the belief is that that generation of relinquished persons will > have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > relinquishment, where at least the b-family details are on record. > Rupa Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have SH(s). > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are > either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have > SH(s). I tend to agree - if you're going to go through the pregnancy, without intending to keep the child, why would you then abandon the child at a fire station or hospital? Why wouldn't you go through an adoption agency or surrender the child to the state for adoption? Babies still end up in dumpsters, unfortunately, even with SH laws. Chickeyd > > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are > > either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Babies still end up in dumpsters, unfortunately, even with SH laws. > Chickeyd I don't think women who "dump" babies go through the pregnancy deliberately. I suspect they're completely in denial about being pregnant, or they don't have the knowledge/ money/ access to get an abortion. Rupa > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are > either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have > SH(s). Two reasons. First, I think it affects an extremely small number of people. You say that the numbers would grow sharply if they "take off." Perhaps; but it would seem that instead of talking about a few a year, you would still talk about maybe a few more per year. Second, I don't think we have enough data to know if they work or don't work. If they substitute babies in the trash, I support them. If they substitute properly relinquished babies, I oppose them. The probability is they will do some of both. But we've no way, at present, to know. In public policy matters, I personally don't think in terms of "right and wrong" dichotomies. Something can be right and a failure, or wrong and a success, in terms of the ultimate goals. I'll give one example, from public housing.(It's a lengthy one, I'm afraid.) Country A provides public housing on the basis of Need. The people who have the greatest need get housed first. This, to me, is Right, in the sense of morally right. But the result is that people who for various reasons are at great need also don't build much of a community, support each other, maintain the housing and so on. The places become pits. Country B sets a whole bunch of quotas and preferences. Need is only one factor that is considered. It preferentially houses relatives near each other. It deliberately integrates races. (Sometimes there's a conflict between the racial quotas and the 'relatives' prefences...) It mixes economic groups, so some people who are not at such great need are brought into the mix. It withdraws the housing when people in it engage in criminal activity, even if it was the children or grandchildren of the person housed. Many of these things are Wrong -- especially the last, where the poor grandmother may be evicted because of her unruly grandson's drug dealing. But it deliberately fosters formation of a community, and the housing projects are safe and neighborly places to live in. Rupa > > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are > > either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have > > SH(s). > > Two reasons. First, I think it affects an extremely small number of > people. You say that the numbers would grow sharply if they "take off." No she didn't - I did :) Kathy 1 > > > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They are > > > either wrong or right. I cannot think of one good reason to have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kathy 1 Ooops! Apologies to you both. Rupa > > > > Rupa, I don't understand how one could be neutral on SHs. They > are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rupa No need to apologize, I caught up with you in your next post. :) I understand your pov much better now, however, I still cannot see one logical reason for baby safe havens when there are adoption agencies on almost every street corner/or a phone call away, not to mention the father being denied his right to parent his baby. > > If the belief is that that generation of relinquished persons will > have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they affect too small a number of people to have a major impact either > way -- saving babies, or losing histories. Now. Wait until they take off - then watch the numbers grow. Kathy 1 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.