South Africa’s Times newspaper reported today on a controversial new scheme in Cape Town that allows parents to leave unwanted babies anonymously in a “baby safe” mounted on an exterior wall of a community center.
The initiative was launched last week by charity worker Kim Highfield. “Less than 10 seconds after a baby is placed in the metal structure, which is lined with a baby blanket and pillow, an alarm is triggered inside the building”, the Times reported.
“Child welfare experts agree that, though Highfield means well, her initiative could increase baby abandonment and create a myriad of legal and social problems.”
Nobody has yet made use of the safe, but the newspaper reports that about 101 babies have been deposited in a similar facility in Johannesburg since January 2007.
Related historical trivia: In 1670, France’s Louis XIV opened the Foundling Hospital to house abandoned children. In the first year, 312 children were dropped off; by the end of the eighteenth century more than 6,000 children were admitted each year. Five children that were abandoned, as Voltaire noted, belonged to philosopher/cretin Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Source)
May 11th, 2011 | 8:26 am
The option of dropping off babies already exists in many states. Google “Safe Haven Laws.”
I think it is a good thing for the babies, but I don’t know if it is a good thing for the larger society.
May 11th, 2011 | 9:00 am
But isn’t this the solution that all the anti-choice people want? If a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want a baby, isn’t your solution to have the baby and then put it up for adoption when it is born? (No answer on how 3000+ babies a day would get adopted…)
May 11th, 2011 | 9:26 am
In the first year, 312 children were dropped off; by the end of the eighteenth century more than 6,000 children were admitted each year.
A. Have studies been done as to rates of abortion/birth control use/infanticide/exposure in France during that time? Because until we establish those baselines, we can’t even know if this policy did in fact provide people who would otherwise be acceptably responsible parents (we’re looking at you, author of Émile) with an incentive to give up on their responsibility and just fornicate with abandon — I assume that’s why you think taking care of babies in this way is a bad idea — or whether it was a way of saving and caring for babies who really would be otherwise neglected or killed, policy or no policy.
B. Do we have a better idea of how to take care of children? A realistic one that doesn’t involve waving a magic wand and making all men virtuous in a society in which people apparently believe that virtue cannot be a goal or aim of society per se?
May 11th, 2011 | 9:50 am
France has long had a policy of allowing women to give birth anonymously, with the children being taken into care.
About 400 women a year use this option, compared to 4,000 a year in the 1950s.
In a country where there about 4,000 overseas adoptions a year, and some 25,000 families approved for adoption on the waiting list, such children are not difficult to place.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:07 am
“anti-choice”
What an Orwellian euphemism.
May 11th, 2011 | 11:18 am
One can still see on the side wall of Santo Spirito hospital in Rome the barrel shaped turnstile where babies were left to the care of the hospital in the early modern period. The hospital is a three minute walk to the basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican. It is a living reminder of a truth often said by the early Christian apologists: Christians do not expose their babies.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:02 pm
But isn’t this the solution that all the anti-choice people want? If a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want a baby, isn’t your solution to have the baby and then put it up for adoption when it is born? No answer on how 3000+ babies a day would get adopted…
The primary solution is the respect of the human dignity and the protection of all life. All else follows. Abortion is due to the perversion of sexuality instead of as a pro-creative force.
If individuals respect themselves and each other, abortion wouldn’t be conceivable in the first place. Take a look at Theology of the Body.
By the way, would you have your hypothetical +3,000 children killed because you have “no answer” to how they will be cared for?
May 11th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
Jeremy: “No answer on how 3000+ babies a day would get adopted…”
Are you kidding? Americans wait years and spend tons of money to adopt babies from China and other countries halfway across the world, but you think that thousands of American babies would somehow go wanting for adoptive parents? Seriously?
Obviously this South Africa story is indicative of serious social problems that need addressing, but why can’t the Church do what the state is doing in this area? I don’t see why not.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
@Brian
Yes, thousands upon thousands of babies would go un-adopted if women were forced to have babies. You should read up on what happened in Romania after abortion was banned. They had a multitude of babies end up in ophanages, and they had no natural care from their mothers or anyone else. Many of them when they grew up began to display the attributes of a psychopath. And from a fiscal conservative’s point of view, you are bringing somebody into the world who is 100% dependent on the state for at least the next two decades. You can imagine the politicians they would vote in.
May 11th, 2011 | 1:31 pm
Jeremy: I’ll leave aside the bizarre images conjured up by “if women were forced to have babies,” and point out that America ain’t Romania. Have you ever known anyone who adopted a baby? Some friends of mine waited for years for a baby from China, and eventually they were offered a four year old with a heart defect. They took her in an instant. The demand for babies dwarfs the supply. Absolutely dwarfs it.
May 11th, 2011 | 2:07 pm
But isn’t this the solution that all the anti-choice people want?
No.
May 11th, 2011 | 5:24 pm
A number of states have similar laws and they do not seem to have caused any insurmountable social problems. Here is the Nevada statute:
NRS 432B.630 Delivery of newborn child to provider of emergency services.
1. A provider of emergency services shall take immediate possession of a child who is or appears to be not more than 30 days old:
(a) When:
(1) The child is voluntarily delivered to the provider by a parent of the child; and
(2) The parent does not express an intent to return for the child; or
(b) When the child is delivered to the provider by another provider of emergency services pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2.
2. A provider of emergency services who takes possession of a child pursuant to subsection 1 shall:
(a) Whenever possible, inform the parent of the child that:
(1) By allowing the provider to take possession of the child, the parent is presumed to have abandoned the child;
(2) By failing or refusing to provide an address where the parent can be located, the parent waives any notice of the hearing to be conducted pursuant to NRS 432B.470; and
(3) Unless the parent contacts the local agency which provides child welfare services, action will be taken to terminate his or her parental rights regarding the child.
(b) Perform any act necessary to maintain and protect the physical health and safety of the child. If the provider is a public fire-fighting agency or a law enforcement agency, the provider shall immediately cause the safe delivery of the child to a hospital, an obstetric center or an independent center for emergency medical care licensed pursuant to chapter 449 of NRS.
(c) As soon as reasonably practicable but not later than 24 hours after the provider takes possession of the child, report that possession to an agency which provides child welfare services.
3. A parent who delivers a child to a provider of emergency services pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1:
(a) Shall leave the child:
(1) In the physical possession of a person who the parent has reasonable cause to believe is an employee of the provider; or
(2) On the property of the provider in a manner and location that the parent has reasonable cause to believe will not threaten the physical health or safety of the child, and immediately contact the provider, through the local emergency telephone number or otherwise, and inform the provider of the delivery and location of the child. A provider of emergency services is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any harm or injury sustained by a child after the child is left on the property of the provider pursuant to this subparagraph and before the provider is informed of the delivery and location of the child pursuant to this subparagraph or the provider takes physical possession of the child, whichever occurs first.
(b) Shall be deemed to have given consent to the performance of all necessary emergency services and care for the child.
(c) Must not be required to provide any background or medical information regarding the child, but may voluntarily do so.
(d) Unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the child has been abused or neglected, excluding the mere fact that the parent has delivered the child to the provider pursuant to subsection 1:
(1) Must not be required to disclose any identifying information, but may voluntarily do so;
(2) Must be allowed to leave at any time; and
(3) Must not be pursued or followed.
4. As used in this section, “provider of emergency services” means:
(a) A hospital, an obstetric center or an independent center for emergency medical care licensed pursuant to chapter 449 of NRS;
(b) A public fire-fighting agency; or
(c) A law enforcement agency.
(Added to NRS by 2001, 1254; A 2001 Special Session, 56; 2003, 236)
May 11th, 2011 | 9:21 pm
This is a modern foundling wheel. Pope Innocent III insisted on these as features of foundling hospices in the 1100′s as an alternative to burdening harbormaster whose job every morning was to fish out the dead infants whose bodies clogged the Tiber.
Vincent de Paul brought this to France in the 1600′s.
It was a cornerstone of European orphanages until the late 19th century.
May 12th, 2011 | 10:18 am
If a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want a baby, isn’t your solution to have the baby and then put it up for adoption when it is born?
Well, that’s what my biological parents did, putting me into an orphanage. It beat being dead.
No answer on how 3000+ babies a day would get adopted…
Of course, I got adopted. But if I wouldn’t have? Oh heavens, then I would have faced a life like…..my adoptive father, who was put into “the system”, never adopted, bounced from orphanage to institution to foster home throughout his childhood and adolescence, joined the Army at 18, and won a chest full of medals in WWII. He then proceeded work in the defense industry, marry, and eventually adopt 2 kids in his 40′s, send them both to college, etc.
Again, beats being dead.
May 12th, 2011 | 3:20 pm
Here’s some hard numbers on California’s Safe Surrender law first mentioned by George above, for Los Angeles County:
http://www.babysafela.org/data.htm
To Jon W’s first question, yes, some studies have been done. You can read about them on pages 93 and 94 of the tome “Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History” by Prof. Joseph W. Dellapenna (Carolina Academic Press). Unfortunately, the data is too complex for me to summarize here.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:00 am
@Jerry Beckett
If you were an orphan, then you are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the reproductive freedom. Let us consider if birth control and abortion wasn’t allowed, and 3000 unwanted children were entering the orphanages each day. First, with millions of other children waiting to be adopted, you can forget any hope of ever being adopted, so just imagine kissing your adoptive parents goodbye right now. But second, there is a finite amount of resources in the world, and poor orphans are usually the first to be among the first to fall to the wayside. In a world where people aren’t allowed to control their birth rate, as an orphan, you would be dead of starvation, or wish you were. You should research what orphanages are like in nations with backwards laws on birth control.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:21 am
@Brian
“The demand for babies dwarfs the supply. Absolutely dwarfs it.”
You are joking with me. In just Africa, 12% of children are orphans, which comes to about 35 millions kids. Asia has 65 million. Every 5 seconds a child dies of starvation. Read about street children. If we just forget the rest of the world, in the USA, there are 120,000 children right now waiting to be adopted.
May 13th, 2011 | 6:36 pm
First, with millions of other children waiting to be adopted, you can forget any hope of ever being adopted, so just imagine kissing your adoptive parents goodbye right now.
So being dead is better to you than being in an orphanage. Not to me. Don’t think it was to my adoptive father (who was never adopted and grew up in “the system”), either.
In a world where people aren’t allowed to control their birth rate, as an orphan, you would be dead of starvation, or wish you were. You should research what orphanages are like in nations with backwards laws on birth control.
So the children should be pre-emptively killed. Got it.
When one removes the possibility of killing unborn children, no matter how many there are, then one could actually move towards trying to solve or at least alleviate the problems you speak of.
However, you’re not willing to do that.
May 13th, 2011 | 6:45 pm
(Hit submit too soon)
No, rather than see children experience life without parents, or even experience starvation, you advocate having them killed in the womb.
So much for your “compassion”.
May 14th, 2011 | 10:13 am
I don’t think you can call a potential person “dead”, except in the philosophical sense. Every time we refuse a sexual encounter or sperm doesn’t make it to the egg for whatever reason, a potential person dies.
Also don’t speak anything good about orphanages or orphan life in America when your anti-birth control policies would turned them into Romania’s.
May 16th, 2011 | 1:09 pm
Every time we refuse a sexual encounter or sperm doesn’t make it to the egg for whatever reason, a potential person dies.
Not by any definition of a “person” other than maybe Monty Python’s. When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, a human life has begun (not before, as in your stupid rebuttal). Abortion is a deliberate ending of that life. You’re cool with this, and advocate this murder rather than the person endure future suffering.
Also don’t speak anything good about orphanages or orphan life in America when your anti-birth control policies would turned them into Romania’s.
Both my adoptive father and I were in orphanages before abortion was legal. My father was in “the system” in the Depression-era Bronx before birth control was widely available. Were either of our experiences as bad as a Romanian orphanage? Somehow I doubt it. However, if orphanage life was or is that horrible, your solution is that we should have been killed. We disagree.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact