Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder
of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man
without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...


So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it
about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to
pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...

You know Fred, I know a fair bit about "safe haven" laws in the US
(also called "safe drop-off" in some states and "hatchery" laws in Europe.
I gained this knowledge with a little judicious *research* (Google is a
wonderful tool...use it !) which I did BEFORE I came into these news
groups and started spouting off about something I knew nothing about. If
you want to learn about safe have laws, just google "safe have laws" and
you'll get about 100 pages of "hits" and you to can find out what it's
all about without expecting someone else to make the effort for you...
The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in
adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing
to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...in safe haven/drop off
situations there is no such requirement, you just dump the infant and
walk away...no strings attached and the child becomes the ward of the
state. It's interesting that the primary objection by many to allowing
fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an objection to the state "paying
for" someone else's child yet this is *exactly* what occurs in a "safe
haven/drop-off situation for women....hummm
I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly
rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no
one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO
NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive
rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably
unconstitutional to boot...

....Ken