If baby boxes were legal where you are, would you use them?

[kakteed]

And if they already are, would you use them.do you know anyone who has?

Inspiration!

[uralxium]

I can see the use in a country like China with their one child policy and all that,
but otherwise I am not all that keen on the idea.

I can see the plus side of it,
at least the babies are safe rather than just left on the street.
But like the article said,
they can be easily taken advantage of.
And it could stop people from being careful in the first place.
"Why use BC when I can just abandon my child?"
And imagine being a child growing up and knowing you were left in a box.

idk in some respect it seems to be brushing a problem under the carpet rather than solving it.

But then you could argue that if people want to abandon babies,
they will find ways to do it whether their is a baby box or not.

[Marrms]

I see the good and the bad too.
But I don't see people just being careless and not taking the proper measures because they know there are these places they can use. I think tons of women going through the nine months just to do that is a worse case concern.
That and just because China and other places do it a certain way doesn't mean we have to follow their rules to an exact T we could make our own rules for the public to go by.


I think I'd rather hear of baby's going to places like this rather bathrooms or dumpsters where they're left to die from exposure if they're not found soon enough.

[Faerie Dreams]

I wouldn't use one...I want all children that come out of me.

But as others said I can see the good and the bad...it would prevent young women from shoving newborns in their purse to die and later be discovered by store security...or throwing them in dumpsters and stuff...

[freelance lover]

I mean, the US has this too, in safe surrender sites, like at fire stations and hospitals. I think that is ideal because then the baby can get immediate care and not wait in a box, but if they can't maintain a fully staff facility like that, I think the boxes are a good alternative.

I don't think this suggests "dumping you baby" as some people will suggest. Rather, it gives women an option if they feel they cannot care for their child. People already dump their babies, at least now they have a fighting chance. And the whole "why use birth control, I can just dump my baby" argument is stupid. You still have hospital bills and stuff if you carry to term, so it's not like you're getting away with nothing. That's still nine months of your life.

[Princess Jaydenn]

I wouldn't use them because I would never have a reason too. As for others, I think it can do some good because rather then people throwing their unwanted babies into the trash and places that they would suffer and/or die. This seems like a better solution. I think it's awful that people would just abandon their babies anyways, but it's going to happen regardless so at least this way it will save some lives.

[Fuzzypeachlover]

Since a woman was just convicted of 3 counts of infanticide and endangering a live by giving birth and tossing the child in a ******** BFI bin? (FYI this happened in Canada)

Yes we do have safe sites to give children up but in the cases of domestic abuse a baby box would be better.

What is ******** stopping people from legalizing them in some countries?

Personally I would never use one, but I do agree where they aren't legal they should be.

[XxMrBunBunxX]

I greatly see the benefits of these boxes.

I was very much so against them, until I learned that the boxes were near children service agencies, and that someone was alerted when a baby was dropped off in one.

When it comes to giving up a child, people want anonymity. In the states, you have to drop a child off at a registered safe haven and interact with people. I can only imagine the anxiety and shame that someone may feel while doing that. However, the baby boxes don't really do that.

If someone wants to abandon their child, they're going to do it. Providing a safe place to abandon a child is the best thing to do.

[K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a]

I wouldn't use one, because I want to keep all of my ( future ) children and do not foresee a time when I wouldn't be able to care for them myself.

Hypothetically though...
If in the future I am ever pregnant and unable to take care of my child (pre-natal medicine, lack of funds to pay for anything baby-related after/during/before birth, etc) and other resources aren't available (family, friends, donations, government aid, etc) I would still prefer to invest in just adoption rather than anonymously placing my baby in a box.

If I wouldn't find someone to adopt him/her (which is... hard to believe, because I'm white / healthy / academically well off), and I was homeless at that point but with the child in my arms and it's cold and there is no one to take me in or help me -- I would use the baby box then.

I assume it would be heated / insulated, and overall might give a much better chance for the baby to survive.

The cons of the baby boxes though is...
I'm not certain if they'd provide enough protection for the child. I think in high crime areas where flash kidnappings and organ harvesting are most common... a baby box would provide those people with just free money. There is also no way to know if the people who take the child in are good people who are also good parents... the same exact dilemma as with adoptions and foster homes.

[Silent Mule Man]

Quick clarification, do you only put babies in or can you take babies out?

[K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a]

freelance lover

I mean, the US has this too, in safe surrender sites, like at fire stations and hospitals. I think that is ideal because then the baby can get immediate care and not wait in a box, but if they can't maintain a fully staff facility like that, I think the boxes are a good alternative.

I don't think this suggests "dumping you baby" as some people will suggest. Rather, it gives women an option if they feel they cannot care for their child. People already dump their babies, at least now they have a fighting chance. And the whole "why use birth control, I can just dump my baby" argument is stupid. You still have hospital bills and stuff if you carry to term, so it's not like you're getting away with nothing. That's still nine months of your life.

The cost of abortion is also pretty steep. (Although I'm glad for that)

It's better overall to just cough up money for birth control and take it regularly than to take any of those options.

[I care about your opinion]

oh look. immature females trashing their blood and flesh. wonderful.

[VaniIla Coke]

okay?
gurl you ridiculous. that s**t is not for kids, get it together.
DIAPERS an dPULL UPS
what the hell yu think they make the commercials for?
not for adults b***h so use them.
all those bitches out there need some direction.

[Flynn MacCumhaill]

Fortunately, I suspect most of us are in a position where we would not need such a service, as we are able to access more appropriate fostering and adoption services. Where there are barriers to accessing such services, I think these are a good idea. The arguments against them mostly revolve around the idea that it might cause some uptick in abandonments... but it has huge potential to prevent direct murder and manslaughter by abandonment of the babies it is designed to help, and I feel that is likely to seriously outweigh any increase in the number of children being given up.

I do feel this is a stopgap solution. The issues (be they financial, social, or anything else) leading to abandonment rather than fostering and adoption through other means should be addressed.

[Blackrose_Knight]

I would not want to put my body through the trauma of childbirth so if I had an unwanted pregnancy I would still opt for abortion myself.

I think the US's current system of safe surrender places (staffed hospitals, firehouses..ect) work well as they are. But I can see the need for anonymity when surrendering a child.