We've got a subject coming up for vote here, and as Godzilla is my witness I have no idea which way to vote. Therefore, I throw it out to the ravenous school of pirahnas known as the members of this board ( ;)) to chew on and pull apart.

Should it be legal for mothers to abandoned unwanted babies at hospitals, police stations, fire stations, etc., as long as it is within 30 days of the birth of said baby?

I'm really torn in two on this one. On the one hand, I see a door opening for careless couples and ordinary sluts to pop out kid after kid and just dump them somewhere like a disposable lighter. On the other hand, I wonder what sort of life the child would lead being raised by a mother that didn't want it?

There is a rising trend in this activity, and I wonder what it says about society? Has the ground been dug out from underneath morality? Or is there a deeper reason that finds women unable to care for a child, although they may want to, and must therefore make the painful choice to abandon the child in a place where professionals will know what to do? What is the portrait of a woman who would do such a thing? Do we see a selfish whore throwing out a mistake, or a tearful mother praying for a better life for the child she will never know?

If it's made legal, will hospitals become convenient drop-boxes, like the ones found at video stores? If it's kept illegal, will it really make a difference in the number of abandoned babies, or will it only make us feel better because we get to punish the guilty?

Thanks in advance for your input.
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/diver_oxygen.gif

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Oxygen,

You know, it's really hard to know what to say to something like that. I can see where you're comming from. I just think it's rotten that we have so little regard for life and human life that this even has come to a vote. It takes a vile person or one with mental problems not to care about their own child. It's sad that we, these days, seem to have the former in spades. Just even thing the social ills at work here (being sin) could even be solved by a vote is sad. Not to mention that weather the outcome is to allow it or not, the value of the children has already been crushed under foot! It's a given that I would say that the person having the child needs to first get right with God. Still, even a non-christian knows good and well that dumping off babies when they are no longer cute or are in the way of having a good time is disgusting. I didn't even know that this kind of thing was up for a vote anywhere! What area of the world are you in? When does this come up for a vote? I thank you.

I would venture to say that to vote not to allow this action is to place a firm wall of consequences before the people that would do this. That is a good thing. To vote to allow would do no good. You would only serve to increase the number of these cases because now the action has been excused by the law. The law has no power to stop evil. It's just there to point it out. However, if the law is not kept pure, it will be the best friend evil ever had. Please, vote not to allow such a thing.

Moreover, I, personally, have seen the change in a woman's heart that was about to do away with her child. The wall of consequences hit her in the face and her eyes were opened. Both mother and child and the new daddy are better for it. consequences are a help to the simple in ignorance and a vise to the foolish in evil. consequences will empower those that do have the ability to grow and become better members of society. Consequences will also contain the foolish that will plague and fester in society to bring it to ruin. The foolish run rampant without consequences. Hold fast to consequences. I know you care. I remember the story you told in that you were good the neighbour kid. You made him aware of the consequences and dissolved the mystique of the lie. I trust that you will choose correctly and keep the consequences.

Praise God that He Loves us anyway!!!,
ISDAMan

Thank you, ISDAMan. I live in the state of California. We get a lot of strange things petitioned out here. Fortunately, most never make it to the proposition stage. After a careful consideration of the matter as well as getting input from friends and associates here, your post has sealed the fate of my vote. I will vote against the legalized dumping of children.

While I care that these children not wind up dumped in a garbage can or left to starve in a back alley, there are alternatives. There are plenty of childless couples waiting in agonizingly long lines at adoption centers.

Thank you again for shining a light on my path. I walk now with confidence. :)

Oxygen,

Thank you for your kind words :D !!!!! You warm my heart!!!! I will be praying for the outcome. Can you give me more info on it,... like when and how close the race is? I really am happy. I thank God for your wise choice.

God will repay!!! Give and watch Him give beyond all of your dreams,
ISDAMan

I'll let you know what comes of it.

I have to agree with ISDAMAN. Voting for this only says that this behavoir is ok. It is not and should be met with harsh punishment. Making it legal is not the answer. The problem lies in a social problem and should be met with a social answer. One that will address the problem not just put a band aid on it.

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

From a historical perspective, the "dumping" of children is nothing new. It use to be the practice to leave the unwanted child in the forest or atop a mountain, its fate decided by Nature. In the modern era, one would hope that the child would be left at an orphanage to be later considered for adoption. To think that some would wish for more such ready-to-receive outlets to dispose of their unwanted children i.e. police stations, fire stations, hospitals, etc., does seem to negate the whole seriousness of the issue to one of simply dropping off so much dirty laundry to be cleaned by someone else. I'm glad you voted the way you did Mr. Oxy.

If a mother of a new born child, doesn't wish to keep it, FOR WHATEVER REASON, then she should be able to pass it onto society expediently and painlessly while being offered counselling and a chance to change her mind if she so wishes.
The alternative is either the death of the child from being dumped in a garbage can or a life of misery, by being brought up by a parent who hates it.
Let's not forget that demand far outstrips supply for childless couples.

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

Tab,

The measn are all ready there. All it takes is for the expecting mother to accualy take resopnesabilty for her self and situation and chose to give the child up for adoption. Why do we need to make it so easy for expecting mother to be irresopenesable? We should be promoting the the means all ready in place while bolestering resopesabilty! WE should not allow for last minute "dumpings". Any one found doing such should be punished to fullest extent! Puting across the message that this is not a matter be handled lightly and will not be.

------------------
All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. :)

The REAL question is why are there so many people killing and/or abandoning babies, or keeping them and not caring for them, disciplining them, loving them???????


The REAL answer: SIN.

That was easy, huh?

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Accualy to easy! You are missing the biger picture. Society has become more and more lax in the area of resopnesablity (I know horribly misspelled). This comes and goes in waves over a peroid of many years probaly a little more than a hundred years or so. What needs to start happening is a bit of tightening on morals. Not so much, such as the era od prohibition, which was way to strict. If that happens people will rebel against it and rebound in the other direction. What is needed is an emphisis on intergerty. Not sin. Saying sin is the underling cause is just way to vague. We need to go after the problem more targeted then useing a shotgun.

------------------
All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. :)

Originally posted by 666:
Tab,

The means* are all ready there. All it takes is for the expecting mother to actually* take responsibility* for her self and situation and choose* to give the child up for adoption.


But surely 666,
this new law is designed specifically for the type of people who do not or cannot take responsibility for their own actions.
By keeping their actions illegal, they are simply being encouraged to look for the nearest garbage dump. Because unfortunately that's what they're like, regardless of the law.
(excuse me for taking the liberty of correcting your spelling, it was just too tempting)



------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

Tab,

I don't mind. Some times my spelling can be pretty bad.

I still stand by the fact that the answer is not in making it easyer for people to dump babbies on a whim. As you pointed these people will not and can not take responsibility for thier actions. Making it easyer is not the answer. These people need to be targeted and helped, treated may be the better word. If some one is incapable of taking responsibility for thier own actions they obviously can't function to well in society and need the help to be able to. Once again we should be promoting better behavior not just legilize improper behavior. Society dosen't need a band aid it needs a fix.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited February 22, 2000).]

I don't think you can 'fix' society. Society is always evolving, therefore you have to treat it 'on the fly'. What is unacceptable today becomes acceptable tomorrow and vice versa.

666,

Everything that you just said I had already encompassed in my original answer. What exactly do you think sin is anyway? Believe me 666, it's all about sin. If there were no sin, there would be no unwanted children, period. To say that there is a wide variety of types and degrees of sin that effect this particular problem is correct, which is I think what you are trying to say. But it is all sin nonetheless. Take it away, and what have you got? Wanted babies, and lots of em'. It really is that simple in a general theoretical sense. Just because I don't delve into the bevy of detail in circumstance that may be considered, doesn't mean the answer is not correct. Actually, if you want to try my mental exercise, you yourself delve into the detail in circumstance, remove all of the sin (the 7 deadly types) and see what you get. You'll get a parallel universe with no unwanted babies. Try it, it's fun. :)

Also, no need to apologize for the spelling. It makes me think that you're handsome, so it turns me on. Uh, anyone want to finish the debate regarding sexual paradigms????? LOL! *eye roll* See how strange we all are, myself included? It's all so strange indeed. But at least it's funny!!! :D

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Tab,

There have been certain things that have never been acceptable and I belive this to be one of them.

Lori,

Well sin may be at the root of this, but we need to stop looking at the cause and work towards a solution. Making it easy is not a solution but a cop out.

Well i gueess we are a little wierd. :)

------------------
All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. :)

666,

Sorry to jump in but as easy as Laurie's cause is, the solution is just as easy. It might seem simple but it is not a cop out.

I'm begging out now 'cause I'm sure Laurie will tell you what the answer is if you haven't figured it out already! :)

There are only two ways modern Western societies can go.

One is to try and match social evolution, with the contemporarily, relevantly correct education. The relaxing, abolition or changing of certain laws. And the empowerment of Social, Medical and Rehabilitation facilities for all.


The other way is to slowly encourage the iron fist of a totalitarian political regime, and/or fundamentalist 'discipline oriented religion/s'. By not accepting or recognizing the flow of social evolution in good time, by not addressing important social issues properly or in good time*, by neglecting dynamic and relevant educational systems for the future citizens, by enforcing or proposing antiquated and unrealistic laws and by neglecting the social, medical and rehabilitation needs of (mostly) the people who need it most.

I opt for the former idea.

* Everytime a society's government disregards a social/political issue, it tends to get out of control and tends to get led by militants/terrorists, who by necessity become criminals.
Everytime they ban something people want, they create a black market and the criminals move in.

666,

Ok, the solution is....remove the greed from the world, now remove the lust, and there ya go. Do I do this myself? Yes sir I do try. I'm not too good at it, but at least I know how to try. 666, if you take all of the greed out of the world, don't you see that you would unjustify about 99.9% of all unwanted babies? And I'm not talking just about a particular mother's or father's greed, I'm talking about ALL greed. Just try it mentally ok? I'm sure you will get it. All we can do is try ourselves. You can't control others, but if others would only realize WHERE all of these bad things come from, and what they really are, they would work to change. I'll give you a personal example. I used to be a slut, used to define myself and my life by how much money I would make, used to be on the pill so I could screw around and not have to deal with the consequences. Couldn't get married cause I had too much money to make ya know? I mean we all know that unless you have a 4 year degree, a house in the burbs with a 2.5 car garage and a day care all lined up, it's a sin to have a baby right? (And oh please, I'm being sooooo cynical and sarcastic here, please know that). Guess what? The pill didn't work once. There it is...that unwanted baby. What did I do? Did I think for one second that I would actually DEAL with the consequences of my own actions? HELL NO! So I killed it. The pain I experienced from that (emotional pain that is) is what finally humbled me enough to look for an answer. Jesus my friend is where the answer lies. Not because it's an easy cop-out source to follow blindly, but because it ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. Like math does. I hope this helps. :)

Oh, and about the spelling thing....am I right or what? I like to entertain the idea that I'm penile psychic. LOL! :D

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 28, 2000).]

Removing greed from the world... Isn't that idea at the root of Communism?

Go Lori go, Go Lori go. Tthhhbttt.

<hr>

Hmm, since I've actually posted here, I guess I might as well say something relevant to the subject. There's nothing wrong with contraception. Failing that, there's nothing wrong with early abortion. Failing that, there's nothing wrong with adoption. So if designated anonymous drop-off centers are established where unwanted/unaffordable babies can be left, I don't see any harm in it, yet I see benefit.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 28, 2000).]

Boris,

That may be the "idea" behind communism, but it is not reality. In reality, the aristocratic socialist government hoards the riches, right? So what is your point exactly? I'm talking about removing ALL the greed. Not just for some. And not in some "forced" way. I'm an anarchist at heart, remember? You don't get what I mean at all. Could you try a little harder? I explained to you that this is not something that is "enforceable", it's an ideal. It's the garden of Eden before the fall. The fall makes it IMPOSSIBLE to go back, but that doesn't mean that the concept, or the reality of it's past existence in relation to God's will for us should be ignored.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Hey Lori, while we are at it, how about removing ALL marijuana too?

I guess what I'm trying to figure out here, is what is the point you are trying to make? That we should all strive to better ourselves? Then believe me, you ain't the first, and furthermore, so what's next? Or are you proposing to simply limit yourself to admonishments of good behavior? Then what are you doing exactly that hasn't been done for millennia on end all over the world? What kind of a "difference" do you think you are going to make? I don't want more ideology; we've got plenty of that already, always had, and always will have. I want practical solutions. So what are you proposing?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

I'm proposing that if you want to know "what's wrong with us, and what's wrong with the world" to look in the Bible, and it will tell you. I'm not saying that is a "solution", but it IS an answer. There is no solution other than what God has planned in the future for Satan. If you want to know what the true difference between right and wrong is, then look at the utopia, then look out your window. And there ya go! If you want to know WHY there is no solution and never will be til Christ returns, then again, look in the Bible. It explains ALL, yea all, even what's WRONG with the church. That's all I'm saying. Every single "problem", source of pain, stress, disease, death, can be traced back to a sin as identified as such in the Bible. The fact that we are naturally inclined to behave in this masicistic and sadistic way is explained in the Bible. There is no other answer that makes any sense. And BTW, what is this with the "social determination" that you were talking about, AS IF society determines what is right and wrong. What????? How in the bleep do you get that? Society has NO IDEA what's right and wrong and why. All society has ever had is a bunch of sorry rationalizations for cop outs and a bunch of pain to go with it. Like I said....society says "Greed is good because it drives efficiencies in the market. Greed is good because if I work hard then I DESERVE a $50K car to drive while some kids are starving a half mile from my house." I say "Greed is a sin. Period. And if you got rid of it completely, we'd all be a hell of a lot happier." So Boris, why are we all so greedy? Why do people rationalize things that they know are wrong? Why? Why? Do I sound like a 2 year old? LOL! What about lust? Society tells me, lust is normal, lust is healthy, beauty is skin deep. Do you have ANY IDEA how many men I have asked about whether or not porno is a good thing? Many, many, many. It's a little personal survey I like to give. Do you know that NOT ONE OF THEM YET has said that there is anything wrong with it? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM says that I just don't understand. It's totally normal and a healthy "release". I say, oh yea, I understand, and I'm quite disappointed is all. What a f'ing cop out. Maybe if so many men weren't such assholes, and they actually RESPECTED women (imagine that), and didn't treat them like sex objects and personal slaves, then maybe they would get laid every once in a while instead of spending so much time with Rosy. What do you think?

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,


I'm proposing that if you want to know "what's wrong with us, and what's wrong with the world" to look in the Bible, and it will tell you. I'm not saying that is a "solution", but it IS an answer. There is no solution other than what God has planned in the future for Satan. If you want to know what the true difference between right and wrong is, then look at the utopia, then look out your window. And there ya go! If you want to know WHY there is no solution and never will be til Christ returns, then again, look in the Bible.


Lori, answers can be gotten in an even better way by analyzing people's behavior and what motivates, or rewards, such behavior. Then, if behavior is undesirable (impacts negatively on average and personal happiness), one tries to figure out how to take away or counterbalance the motivations or rewards, but in such a way as to minimize any negative impact on general popular and individual satisfaction. The Bible is <u>an</u> answer. But not the best one by far.

There <u>is</u> a solution. If not a perfect one, there nevertheless exists an optimal one. And it's not the Bible. While I don't claim to possess the optimal solution, it nevertheless exists. Hopefully, by the end of this post you'll be able to see why I think so.

As for your method of determining right from wrong, you are pretty close to being correct. What you are doing, intuitively, is testing a theoretical scenario. You are saying: according to my theory of social dynamics, if I set up the initial conditions in such and such a way, what will be the outcome? You are essentially making a theoretical prediction. Not very religious of you (in fact, quite scientific) -- even if you don't realize it. The problem is, your particular theory of folk psychology and social dynamics is as anscient and dysfunctional as alchemy. Better theories have been around for at least decades, although they have not been extensively popularized.

But I endorse the general approach. We generate a set of theories in psychology and sociology. Then, we use those theories to search for the best ideal outcomes possible, to define an ultimate (if not altogether achievable) goal in direction of which we want to move. Then, we figure out <u>practical methods</u> for moving in that direction -- rather than just sitting back and wishing we were back in Eden, we work to approximate that ideal right here on Earth.

A proof positive that such a process of refinement works, is the world at large. There are nations where people are generally happy, and then there are nations which people would gladly flee, if only allowed to. So indeed, even regardless of fundamental human nature (which is invariant), the laws, rules, and dynamics imposed by a society do make a huge difference. This is what I have in mind when I speak of "practical solutions". And as you can see (hopefully), such solutions are not planned by God, but found by mankind through a painful historical process of trial and error -- an almost scientific endeavour, and indeed often driven by the avantgarde thinkers of the time.


And BTW, what is this with the "social determination" that you were talking about, AS IF society determines what is right and wrong. What????? How in the bleep do you get that? Society has NO IDEA what's right and wrong and why.


You would have been more correct if you claimed that the sky is orange with purple spots. Every single society on Earth that ever existed, had established its own codex of morality and etiquette. Social determination is merely my way of referring to the structure of laws and tradition that is passed along family lines and enforced by the society at large. And societies usually have extremely refined ideas of right and wrong, even regardless of their technological level or religion. This is because right and wrong are determined by the human emotional apparatus -- which is universal (obviously) across our species, and always plays a prominent role in shaping our personal and social behaviors.

However, the usual social wisdom typically begins to fail when borderline issues appear which cannot be clearly judged as good or bad by emotions alone. It also begins to fail when entirely new situations arise which have no precedent. This is when new law must be laid, and much more scientifically refined and precise definitions of good and bad must be used to try to arrive at optimal arrangements.


All society has ever had is a bunch of sorry rationalizations for cop outs and a bunch of pain to go with it. Like I said....society says "Greed is good because it drives efficiencies in the market. Greed is good because if I work hard then I DESERVE a $50K car to drive while some kids are starving a half mile from my house." I say "Greed is a sin. Period. And if you got rid of it completely, we'd all be a hell of a lot happier." So Boris, why are we all so greedy? Why do people rationalize things that they know are wrong? Why? Why?


So you see, you've already found a failing in your theory of folk psychology -- only you don't realize it. In fact, it is entirely natural for humans to be greedy -- greed and egotism are definitely evolved traits, as they are eminently helpful for survival and reproductive success. The same can be said of anger, envy, lust, sloth, and many other "sins". In fact, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with these traits, they are part of our very nature. To deny them is to deny who we are. To try to eradicate them is to try to commit suicide.

However, while individually these traits are beneficial (and therefore emotionally rewarded), they result in harm to others when exhibited within a collective. Being the social animals that we are, therefore, we must try to strike a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. While much of sin makes an individual happy, it usually makes the group as a whole less happy (for example, think of laissez-faire capitalism). On the other hand, policies targeted to exclusively benefit the group as a whole marginalize individual happiness (for example, think of communism). A compromise is the only way to attack this dilemma with any success (think of something like the prototypical modern socialist-capitalistic democracy).

Incidentally, that is why "people rationalize things that they know are wrong". These things are actually very "right" as far as the individual is concerned (they are as "right" as wanting to eat, and eating, when you are hungry), so the individual has every emotional and physiological motivation to do these things. However, a certain doctrine deeply internalized by the said individual tells him/her that the very things he/she desires and does are hideously wrong (with no real explanation for why that is so). Therefore, there is an inevitable push for rationalization -- at which the said person is very adept indeed, since they had to master the art in order to internalize the doctrine in the first place. Hence, rather than accepting who they are and correctly understanding (in terms of individual/group tradeoffs) why it is that they shouldn't follow certain urges, the person ends up being a thorough hypocrite in an attempt to both satisfy the impossible self-image imposed by the doctrine, and the actual real self. This is how come we have all these criminals who, in their own mind, did nothing wrong.


Do I sound like a 2 year old? LOL!


No, you don't sound like a 2 year old. You, however, do sound like someone who either never deeply entertained, or refuses to embrace, the practical side of life. Not to single you out, this mistake has been made by an overwhelming majority of all humans who ever lived. However, what if what I just wrote above (and a little more beyond that) was part of the mandatory and repeated education, so that everybody had these ideas in mind from the outset? Could it possibly then be that fewer people would afford to be hypocrites, and could it be that with a better understanding of foundations for morality and law, people might be less inclined to transgress? I don't know, but I'd say it's worth a shot. Trial and error, remember?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 29, 2000).]