Abandoning an Infant?

Question

In relation to this question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahman8FhoaVoJZ1lww2mKpzsy6IX?qid=20070824090920AA9qnxo it is obvious that most prefer allowing mothers the ability to abandon their newborn infant without any further responsibility whatsoever.
I’m just curious about the answers if the father chooses to abandon the baby and leaves it in the care of its mother.
Why should there be a difference?
If the answer is because the mother is more likely to kill the infant, then it is insane to give women custody.

Shouldn't permission of both parents be necessary before abandoning a baby in such a manner?

So many excuses, so little logic.
The end result I see is that most of the feminists seem to think only women have rights, not men and certainly not children, born or unborn.

Unless one can point out their rights in this... I'll wait.

Answer 1

The simple solution is to abolish child support. It's currently very unfair to men. Here's why:

Women can abandon baby without any consequences.
Men can pay child support for to the woman so that she can support the baby, or go to jail.

I'm guessing the reason why they don't make women pay the hospital, is that she would just kill her baby if she was required to pay money. If she's going to be giving it away, most likely the man does not want it. So since both do not want it, then no one pays.

Case #2: If a man doesn't want it, but the woman does, then since ONE of them wants it, then he should have to pay child support. I guess the woman could pay child support too, but most often they'll abort it if they don't want it. I think it's fair that if the man is the one ending up with the child but he ends up changing his mind, he should be free to live it with the same consequences as a woman would have had (which is none). As you can see by my answer, I think the father should have rights to the child(ren) prior to the hospital. The woman should tell the hospital the boyfriend/husband's name - phone # if possible - then the hospital should contact the man, and inform him of it. If he's ok with it, then the kids stays with the hospital. If not, then he drives there and picks her/him up [the kid(s)].

The whole reproductive rights mess is unfair to men. I don't think a lot of women realize that's a big major bunch of rights they're given that some men would kill to have.

Oh wait skipped the last part of the question.Yes, permission of both parents should be required, as I mentioned above.

Answer 2

I have mixed emotions about that. Yes I think its a better alternative than placing the baby in a dumpster or worse but what if the father was unaware of the pregnancy but would have wanted to raise the child. Also there is the concern about family medical history in regards to the child as well.

Answer 3

As someone else said, most of the women that do this haven't told ANYONE they're pregnant; they are in complete denial about it. Most of them don't even acknowledge the fact that they are pregnant until they go into labor. It's a form of mental illness. Look it up. They are usually young and unmarried, and may not even know who the father is, and probably feel certain that he would not be supportive of a baby if they do know who he is. Or they are addicted to drugs.
The point of these laws is to save the lives of newborns, regardless of all else. THAT'S the difference. The reality is that the father may no longer be around (they broke up, he doesn't want to see her) or she doesn't know who he is. These laws are intended to prevent women (or girls) who are so removed from reality that they completely denied their pregnancy for nine months from dumping their child in a field or dumpster. And someone who spent nine months denying an obvious biological fact is not likely to seek out the father and admit the very thing she can't come to terms with herself. Requiring permission from the father would completely negate the purpose of these laws, which is to allow a woman who has not and cannot deal with a new baby ANOTHER option, one that allows someone who can't even face the reality of having a child the ability to leave the baby somewhere that's safe. If these laws save one child, then they are a good thing, and requiring permission would negate the purpose, and lead to more "dumpster babies."

If you can't see how these laws will save newborns lives and how asking "permission" will completely undo the original intent of the law, then I don't know what else to say. And who is she getting permission from? A man she doesn't even know? What if she's the victim of incest? What is she's a runaway who lives on the streets, or a victim of rape? The point is that in MOST of these cases, there is no one to "ask". These are not excuses, this is reality. These laws save lives, and would be completely undone if a "permission" clause was imposed, meaning, more innocent newborns dead.

Answer 4

No, the man's "permission" is not necessary. Thing is, this Texas thing isn't totally anonymous: the mother may be too afraid to face anybody, and the baby may end up dead as a result. The baby hatch is a better idea:

"A baby hatch is a place where mothers can bring their babies, usually newborn, and leave them anonymously in a safe place to be found and cared for. This kind of arrangement was common in mediaeval times and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the device was known as a foundling wheel. Foundling wheels were taken out of use in the late 1800s but a modern form, the baby hatch, began to be introduced again from 1996 and since 2000 has come into use in many countries, notably in Germany where there are around 80 hatches today.

In German-speaking countries the hatch is known as a Babyklappe (baby hatch or flap) or Babyfenster (baby window); in Italian as Culle per la vita (cradle for life); in Japanese as こうのとりのゆりかご (storks' cradle) or 赤ちゃんポスト (baby post).

The hatches are usually in hospitals or social centres and consist of a door or flap in an outside wall which opens to reveal a soft bed, heated or at least insulated. Sensors in the bed alert carers when a baby has been put in it so that they can come and take care of the child. In Germany, babies are first cared for for eight weeks during which the mother can return and claim her child without any legal repercussions. If this does not happen, after eight weeks the child is put up for adoption."

Answer 5

I am an EMT in Texas, and our stations are "safe zones." I think it is WONDERFUL. Permission from the father should not be necessary. The whole point is to make it ANONYMOUS; no questions are asked. If the women were willing to deal with legal papers they would have already done so through an adoption agency. Instead, all they have to do is hand over the baby..it's not "abandonment" by any stretch..thousands of potential parents are desperate to adopt that baby and the birth mother knows that.

Answer 6

There's also the fact that, the woman that choose to abandon her infant hasn't told ANYONE let alone the father (if she knows who he is) that she is pregnant. That is the real problem, that she is so alone in the world that either she has no loved ones to tell, she can't trust any of her loved ones with the news of her pregnancy, and in relation to that, the fact that if she has loved ones, they obviously don't care enough to notice that she is pregnant. Abandonment is the last resort to women that have or feel like they have no other resource in the world.

Answer 7

Extremely interesting question. I'm going to have to say that we should have it both ways, for the sake of children in general, no matter how wishy-washy that sounds. I just can't see a more logical manifestation of this that wouldn't hurt children. On it's face though, you're question is 100% valid. People with the money to adopt a child just aren't going to pay child support.

Answer 8

Are you high? The reason these women are abandoning their babies is because the father probably ran off and left the mother sitting there with no way to support the kid, no help, no interest in his offspring whatsoever, no interest in planning or making a family work. Don't you think any woman who knew the father of her child and knew the guy was responsible and decent and *prepared* for a baby and planted in a permanent residence making a secure living would rather leave the kid with him than dump it off somewhere? I'm gonna say yes. If the mother doesn't know who the father is, oh well. If a guy wanted to actively care about his potential offspring, he'd be wearing condoms. I guess that means a whole lot of guys refuse to keep track of who they all stick their wieners into. But, oh, how they ****** when a woman calls them to ask whether the baby might be theirs.

Some mothers return to pick up their babies after they've had time to get their s.hit together. What do you think, a woman who just carried a baby nine months and gave birth is going to go buy a lollipop and trot down the street, baby long forgotten?

Your logic is in the crapper - once again.

Answer 9

Nobody seems to be asking the most relevant question here. Why are we, as a society, allowing people to reproduce when they are too irresponsible to raise a child?

Answer 10

These laws are for the protection of innocent infants.

They are NOT some sort of reproductive rights scorecard titled "She gets/He gets."

If you want to do something productive, you could hand out free condoms on a street corner. Near your local high school is a good spot.

Edit: To the poster below me: Two words. Bodily integrity.