The Baby Moses Law: Right Or Wrong?

[Mermaid711 0]

Well the other night on the news (Yes mermaid watches the news) there was a story about a lady. In texas, we have a law called the baby moses law and what it alows you to do is leave an unwanted baby at a firestation or hospital. Sounds criminal doesn't it? Well in Texas it's not! Anyways, this lady just walks into the firestation and literaly hands the baby to the fire chief and just walks off. No questions asked. No tickets. No charges. Nothing. Nothing but an abandoned baby.

Well I have two opinions on this story:
1. I guess it is better that the baby is being dropped of at a firestation or hospital where somebody will care for it, instead of it being left in a dumpster to die.
2. It is just making it not as hard on girls who go out and have sex and get pregnant.
I am glad that now there will be not as many babies left in texas dumpsters. However, I am not happy (Since I live in the county in Texas with the highest teen pregnancy rate) that these girls who go out and act like tramps go unpunished. I am affraid to see the teen pregnancy rate go up. And this law does nothing to stop it.

And honestly, this law makes it okay to abandon a baby. What happened to the mentality of "A baby isnt a mistake, it is a happy supprise"? What happened to the days of people being able to control their urges? Why can't girls realize how stupid that the choises are that they are making? What is this world coming to? It is... OKAY?!?!?! to leave a helpless child in a public facility?

But I want to know what YOU think. Does your state have a Baby Moses Law?

Edited August 19, 2007 by Mermaid711 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! People actually left their babies in dumpsters!? If so, the police should check out the DNA of the child, and track down the parents and place them in jail.

[1]However, I am not happy (Since I live in the county in Texas with the highest teen pregnancy rate) that these girls who go out and act like tramps go unpunished. I am affraid to see the teen pregnancy rate go up. And this law does nothing to stop it.[/1]
... [2]What happened to the mentality of "A baby isnt a mistake, it is a happy supprise"? [3]What happened to the days of people being able to control their urges? [4]Why can't girls realize how stupid that the choises are that they are making? [5]What is this world coming to? [6]It is... OKAY?!?!?! to leave a helpless child in a public facility?

[1]So if these people get told "You did horribly wrong!" they are allowed to give their baby to these places?
[2]Did you know common sense is not common? I myself have started to wonder if it ever was.
[3]Since when do people who act like they want ever control their urges? You've heard the saying, "Have fun! Enjoy yourselves!" Unfortunately, some don't say to what limit, and people, therefore, listen.
[4]Because they were too busy being controlled by their urges and were too into the mood. They don't realize until after things happen.
[5]To an end. :XD:
[6]Although it may have a bad affect on the child, it is better than having a life go to waste—literally speaking. Besides, better is a loving family than a mother and or father who hates their child.

And yes, my state follows this law too, but the child must be within a certain age (near out-of-the-womb age), if not, they will not take the child.

[Midnight Blue 0]

Totally better than dumpsters.I know of a similar law in my state where yes, you can give up your baby, no questions asked. I think it works until about a week after birth. I totally don?t want to start a debate on abortion, but I think this ties in closely. You don?t know the circumstances of how it happened, or anything that might prevent the mother from being able to care for the baby. I think that changing this law, while it would stop encouraging teen pregnancy, would cause some trouble when women really have to give up their babies. It might have been Abraham Lincoln who said something along the lines of ?It?s better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to convict one innocent man.? That?s nowhere near as nice as he put it, but the point is the same. Better many babies with adoptive families than even a single one with a horrible home that can?t take care of it (or a baby dead in a dumpster.)As for the rest of it, I?m against sex before marriage, but a lot of kids think it?s ok. Our health classes encourage abstinence, but tell kids that if they?re going to do it, this is how to do it safely. Unfortunately, I don?t have a clue what these silly people are thinking. As soon as we figure it out, it's possible to actually do something about it.

[FolkRockFan 0]

Ultimately, I encourage people (especially my younger siblings) to abstain from sex until they're ready to care for children/treat STDs/deal with other consequences of premarital sex. That would prevent many unwanted babies. Abortion would not be nearly as common. And we might even see fewer cases of child abuse. (Not all people who have unplanned kids abuse their kids, though. And some people who prepare in advance for children do abuse them. So. Yeah.)The Baby Moses law (I live in Texas, by the way) beats the snot out of abortion (IMO) and abandoning those babies in Dumpsters (which does, sadly, happen here sometimes). It also beats having a mother who is not ready for a child, try to rear that kid. The law states that the person with the baby must physically hand that newborn to an authorized recipient - such as a hospital employee, or a firefighter. The mother cannot just drop the kid in the trash can outside of the hospital and walk away - that's still illegal (and, of course, a rotten thing to do to an innocent baby).So: the baby is safe. People can place that kid in foster care or find adoptive parents. The mother does not have to worry about being charged with child abandonment...or trying to figure out how to rear a child she is not ready to rear.As for consequences of one's actions: as far as I'm concerned, the baby's health and well-being are FAR more important than making sure that Baby's Mama feels bad for what she's done wrong. If it comes down to a choice between making sure that the baby is okay and making sure that Baby's Mama feels bad? I'll choose the baby every time.

[Mermaid711 0]

Well, in my opinion, it is MUCHO better than leaving it in a dumpster for a dog to attack or for it to die in filth. I am at least glad that now there SHOULD be fewer sightings of babies in dumpsters....And honestly, the baby moses law DOES have its advantages, and they all outweigh the disadvantages... Like say a mother who is living on welfare (another one of my petpeeves) goes to a party and gets her stupid *bottom* pregnant. She does not want the baby but can not afford an abortion. So she has the option of leaving the child at a firestation so that somebody say- an infertile couple may have children. And (I know this makes me sound greety and careless, but I'm NOT thank you very much) therefore for all of you who hate welfare, that is one less person you are paying for.

[biscuitrat 0]

While I think that prevention is better than a cure (in this case, instructing girls about unprotected sex and encouraging adoption rather than random conception), I feel that if a woman has a baby that she can't care for, the humane and ethical thing to do would be to leave the baby with people who can take care of it. A baby is a living human being and can't simple be thrown away like a piece of trash. One of the major problems with unprotected sex is that girls have very few options. They can give birth and take care of the child, give birth and abandon the child/give it to an adoption agency, or have an abortion, neither of which is an optimal situation. I feel that if we get rid of the necessity to throw babies away, repulsive as it is, through education, then we can finally cut down on the number of babies who are born to underage parents which would probably create higher levels of employment and wealth for everyone involved.Knowledge, after all, is usually the way out of the dark.

[truefusion 3]

(in this case, instructing girls about unprotected sex and encouraging adoption rather than random conception)

Only a selected few even bother to listen to the useful advice that is out there today. When people get the urge and feel like doing whatever they want—they will. It may be due to people being easy on others or perhaps following the "live and let live" concept. This is common belief without proper instruction: "What feels good must be good." Children barely listen to their parents, why would they listen to a stranger? Unfortunately, many learn the hard way; some don't even learn at all whether it was hard on them or not. Perhaps instructing people every year or every 6 months from the end of middle school to the end of college may help a bit. But it shouldn't be limited to girls.

 

One of the major problems with unprotected sex is that girls have very few options.

The major problem of unprotected sex is that it is unprotected.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

I believe the Baby Moses law was more with rape in mind and not insomuch for those who actually were willing to have intercourse. In any rape case, the child deserves to live, and this is the best possible alternative for the victims. No questions asked or comments will help the victim ignore what has happened, and it'll be easier on them.

[Mermaid711 0]

Only a selected few even bother to listen to the useful advice that is out there today. When people get the urge and feel like doing whatever they wantthey will. It may be due to people being easy on others or perhaps following the "live and let live" concept. This is common belief without proper instruction: "What feels good must be good." Children barely listen to their parents, why would they listen to a stranger? Unfortunately, many learn the hard way; some don't even learn at all whether it was hard on them or not. Perhaps instructing people every year or every 6 months from the end of middle school to the end of college may help a bit. But it shouldn't be limited to girls.

The major problem of unprotected sex is that it is unprotected.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

I believe the Baby Moses law was more with rape in mind and not insomuch for those who actually were willing to have intercourse. In any rape case, the child deserves to live, and this is the best possible alternative for the victims. No questions asked or comments will help the victim ignore what has happened, and it'll be easier on them.

I believe that the baby moses law is a better alternitive to litteraly "disposing" of an unwanted child. ANd actually, last year (Every body has to take it this year) the boys had to take a sex ed class. And you know what? Last year I was in the 7th grade, AND WE HAD A GIRL PREGNANT!

 

But you are right in my opinion. The baby moses law is probably the best alternitive to the situation. You don't have to go through the hassle of the process of putting up a baby for adoption, somebody will take care of the baby, and the mother who isn't ready to take care of the baby does not have to worry about taking care of it, or the charges that come with leaving a defencless child in the dumpster. I just don't think it is right to leave a baby in such an unclean place. This law is actually one of the better laws texas has come up with :XD:

[velma 6]

Hello,This is a good move mace to prevent infanticide. But like everything else it has its pros and cons for it will be a really practical and safe option for a mother to give up her child if she cannot take care of it. Rape victims and teen mothers are not the only one who can benefit from these.There are women who are victims of domestic violence who can hopefully give up their child to save it from abusive members. But a relative of the mother can always bring up the issue whether she is a rape victim, abused member, widow/widower etc. This can cause trouble for every one including the baby :XD: Or like others mentioned, it becomes a casual dumping place for careless girls.But I find it a better alternative than throwing the kid in a dumpster. We do not have a right to kill an innocent life without legitimate and practical reasons.

[Mermaid711 0]

Well, like i said, it beats dumpsters and abortion by a long shot. I don't really want to start the whole abortion debate either, but i feel the only time an abortion is okay is when both the baby AND the mother's life is being threatened, I.E. a falopian pregnancy, or a bursted blood vessel... you name it.And in fact, it IS a good thing for rape victums, in my opinion.

[TikiPrincess 0]

@truefusion - FYI, DNA tests only work if you have a sample to compare the child's DNA with, but people can refuse to give a DNA sample, which certainly indicates some sort of guilt, right? And that's somewhat easier to do if you're in a small town, but in a metropolis like Los Angeles, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the surrounding areas, so how would they test everyone?I don't think that this law is a very good one because as Mermaid indicated, it allows women to go through the entire process of pregnancy and birth without suffering the consequences of that action. There are low-cost abortion clinics and family planning centers that distribute free condoms and low-cost contraceptives, but women are too ashamed or unaware of these centers. We have also had a string of unwanted babies found in dumpsters in my area, including a college student!, or that infamous prom attendant that had the baby in the bathroom stall and tried to flush it down the toilet. While I disagree with the law, it does seem much better for the baby to be handed to a hospital or public serviceperson rather than simply being left to die.I know I'll probably get chewed out for saying this, but as much as our society has improved concerning orphans and unwanted children, it is still far from the desirable situation for a child to grow up in. The foster system is still subject to abuse and mistreatment of children, the majority of whom never get placed with a family. Aside from that, the adoption process is so lengthy, in-depth, and costly that people are much more willing to buy a baby from a third-world country or on the black market than go through the proper channels. While I agree that there should be restrictions and such in place to ensure that the child will be going to safe and worthy parents, there should be some sort of happy medium where the people only have so many hoops to jump through; otherwise, the system deters people who would be great parents but can't necessarily afford all the legal work that goes with adoption. So if we're accepting this law, there should really be more improvements to the Social Services bureaucracy. But I think that's a given.As to the problem of girls becoming sexually active at a young age, I believe the change needs to come from other places besides school, which is so bogged down by rules and regulations that sex ed is rather laughable. For the most part, education starts at home, but girls get mixed messages because their parents and religion tell them one thing, and the media and popular culture tell them another. And when they get to puberty and adolescence, most kids have stopped listening to their parents and have started to explore their own boundaries and begun to think more independently from their parents' conditioning. If the media changed, then we would see girls' behavior change as well.

[Mermaid711 0]

@truefusion - FYI, DNA tests only work if you have a sample to compare the child's DNA with, but people can refuse to give a DNA sample, which certainly indicates some sort of guilt, right? And that's somewhat easier to do if you're in a small town, but in a metropolis like Los Angeles, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the surrounding areas, so how would they test everyone?

I just couldn't believe that he/she never heard of that before! The news makes a HUGE deal out of it. But yes, like tiki said they must have a sample of DNA to compare the child's DNA to.

I don't think that this law is a very good one because as Mermaid indicated, it allows women to go through the entire process of pregnancy and birth without suffering the consequences of that action. There are low-cost abortion clinics and family planning centers that distribute free condoms and low-cost contraceptives, but women are too ashamed or unaware of these centers. We have also had a string of unwanted babies found in dumpsters in my area, including a college student!, or that infamous prom attendant that had the baby in the bathroom stall and tried to flush it down the toilet. While I disagree with the law, it does seem much better for the baby to be handed to a hospital or public serviceperson rather than simply being left to die.

That's my point. Yes I'd be embarrased to walk into a family planning center and pick up free condoms, maybe because i live in a semi small town and everybody knows everybody's business. All actions should have consiquences. But like i said in my previous posts, it is a good alternitive to abortion I.E. if you are a rape victum, especially now that studies show that he fetus can actually feel the burn of an abortion. And yes, a much better alternitive to being left to die.

I know I'll probably get chewed out for saying this, but as much as our society has improved concerning orphans and unwanted children, it is still far from the desirable situation for a child to grow up in. The foster system is still subject to abuse and mistreatment of children, the majority of whom never get placed with a family. Aside from that, the adoption process is so lengthy, in-depth, and costly that people are much more willing to buy a baby from a third-world country or on the black market than go through the proper channels. While I agree that there should be restrictions and such in place to ensure that the child will be going to safe and worthy parents, there should be some sort of happy medium where the people only have so many hoops to jump through; otherwise, the system deters people who would be great parents but can't necessarily afford all the legal work that goes with adoption. So if we're accepting this law, there should really be more improvements to the Social Services bureaucracy. But I think that's a given.

Oh no tiki, You're absolutely right! In my town, there are tons of foster kids, and i know won family who has like seven kids that are foster children, and they live TWO DOORS DOWN from a sex offender. I know they are not taking care of the children because it's a good thing to do, they are doing it for the major cash benifits that come along with it... But how on earth is it not illegal to live two doors down from a SEX OFFENDER if you have SEVEN FOSTER CHILDREN?!? I totally agree with you tiki.

As to the problem of girls becoming sexually active at a young age, I believe the change needs to come from other places besides school, which is so bogged down by rules and regulations that sex ed is rather laughable. For the most part, education starts at home, but girls get mixed messages because their parents and religion tell them one thing, and the media and popular culture tell them another. And when they get to puberty and adolescence, most kids have stopped listening to their parents and have started to explore their own boundaries and begun to think more independently from their parents' conditioning. If the media changed, then we would see girls' behavior change as well.

Hahaha I remember sex ed at my school... It was such a joke. I'll never forget when the instructor said, "Don't do it. Sex is fun, and sex feels good. But don't do it." And I will also never forget the D-Hall I had to do for laughing at it... oh well. The media is liberal. Enough said. See, If everybody listened to Fox News Channel than we wouldn't have so many problems, IN MY OPINION. Also, another reason for it is guy can trick girls who don't think they are very pretty or have low self confidence into having sex with them, and alot of time, (since i think there is an age limit on buying condoms, im not sure because i never did it LMAO) it goes unprotected.

[truefusion 3]

@truefusion - FYI, DNA tests only work if you have a sample to compare the child's DNA with, but people can refuse to give a DNA sample, which certainly indicates some sort of guilt, right? And that's somewhat easier to do if you're in a small town, but in a metropolis like Los Angeles, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the surrounding areas, so how would they test everyone?

Assuming interest in the child's life is not short-lived: People do blood drives. People go to the doctor and get check-ups. I'd use the media here, make them have some kind of report that'll incline people to give blood and go to the doctor for a check up of this kind. Yes, there's a chance that these people may not go and this process may take long, but this may help get a large amount of people to give out samples and cases tend to take a while to solve anyways. But you may not really need a DNA sample. The hospitals should have records on how the child looks and who was the parent that gave birth.

 

[1]I don't think that this law is a very good one because as Mermaid indicated, it allows women to go through the entire process of pregnancy and birth without suffering the consequences of that action. [2]There are low-cost abortion clinics and family planning centers that distribute free condoms and low-cost contraceptives, but women are too ashamed or unaware of these centers. We have also had a string of unwanted babies found in dumpsters in my area, including a college student!, or that infamous prom attendant that had the baby in the bathroom stall and tried to flush it down the toilet. While I disagree with the law, it does seem much better for the baby to be handed to a hospital or public serviceperson rather than simply being left to die.

[1]This law doesn't necessarily mean that they won't suffer the consequences, it just means they won't suffer any consequences from the designated places. For they may never hear the end of it from their families, and who knows if this'll look bad on their Judgment.

[2]Err, isn't abortion similar to leaving the child in a dumpster? Isn't it the same as flushing a baby down the toilet? You're doing the same thing: you're putting an end to the child's life at the will of the parent(s). I find this site quite interesting: http://www.abort73.com/ a little warning, by the way, about what you might see is not for those who have a weak stomach and heart, and it requires the flash player plug-in.

 

I know I'll probably get chewed out for saying this, but as much as our society has improved concerning orphans and unwanted children, it is still far from the desirable situation for a child to grow up in. The foster system is still subject to abuse and mistreatment of children, the majority of whom never get placed with a family. Aside from that, the adoption process is so lengthy, in-depth, and costly that people are much more willing to buy a baby from a third-world country or on the black market than go through the proper channels. While I agree that there should be restrictions and such in place to ensure that the child will be going to safe and worthy parents, there should be some sort of happy medium where the people only have so many hoops to jump through; otherwise, the system deters people who would be great parents but can't necessarily afford all the legal work that goes with adoption. So if we're accepting this law, there should really be more improvements to the Social Services bureaucracy. But I think that's a given.

Oh no tiki, You're absolutely right! In my town, there are tons of foster kids, and i know won family who has like seven kids that are foster children, and they live TWO DOORS DOWN from a sex offender. I know they are not taking care of the children because it's a good thing to do, they are doing it for the major cash benifits that come along with it... But how on earth is it not illegal to live two doors down from a SEX OFFENDER if you have SEVEN FOSTER CHILDREN?!? I totally agree with you tiki.

It appears that people are both willing to take in children from third-world countries and the black market and from foster care centers whether or not these people care for the child and whether or not there is paper work involved. And if legal work that goes with adoption is a financial burden on those who want to adopt, i would expect it to be worse if the system were to improve. For that may mean more taxes to provide for these improvements to these services and or more money out the the pockets of those who want to adopt. But i'm not sure how much of a financial burden it really is for these people, i mean, take a look at Mermaid's quote. That family has 7 foster children. Either these people are rich or are "rich" now.

 

Though i agree that the world requires a lot of improvement, people just won't put the effort into it if it takes a lot out of their wallet or purse (if it doesn't help them).

 

As for the sex offender living two doors down, there is a way to have the sex offender move from the location and be forced to live in an area that is not around children.

 

As to the problem of girls becoming sexually active at a young age, I believe the change needs to come from other places besides school, which is so bogged down by rules and regulations that sex ed is rather laughable. For the most part, education starts at home, but girls get mixed messages because their parents and religion tell them one thing, and the media and popular culture tell them another. And when they get to puberty and adolescence, most kids have stopped listening to their parents and have started to explore their own boundaries and begun to think more independently from their parents' conditioning. If the media changed, then we would see girls' behavior change as well.

Of course assuming that the parents are able to properly teach their children about things like these and not promote foolish actions. And God forbid teachers like mentioned below (in Mermaid's quote) should tell these parents how to teach their children about this stuff. And if the media plays a major role in these children's lives, then it is obvious that the parents are not being the parents that they should be.

 

Hahaha I remember sex ed at my school... It was such a joke. I'll never forget when the instructor said, "Don't do it. Sex is fun, and sex feels good. But don't do it." And I will also never forget the D-Hall I had to do for laughing at it... oh well. The media is liberal. Enough said. See, If everybody listened to Fox News Channel than we wouldn't have so many problems, IN MY OPINION. Also, another reason for it is guy can trick girls who don't think they are very pretty or have low self confidence into having sex with them, and alot of time, (since i think there is an age limit on buying condoms, im not sure because i never did it LMAO) it goes unprotected.

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

 

I just couldn't believe that he/she never heard of that before! The news makes a HUGE deal out of it. But yes, like tiki said they must have a sample of DNA to compare the child's DNA to.

To clear things up: i'm a he , and i don't watch T.V. unless i see bad weather heading my way. When i watch T.V., i actually feel my brain cells die. :XD:

 

All actions should have consiquences.

Even good ones? No, right? For that wouldn't be called "consequences," it would be called a "reward."

[TikiPrincess 0]

Yes, there's a chance that these people may not go and this process may take long, but this may help get a large amount of people to give out samples and cases tend to take a while to solve anyways. But you may not really need a DNA sample. The hospitals should have records on how the child looks and who was the parent that gave birth.

I'm not sure where you live, but here in America, it's illegal to take a sample of DNA without consent unless it's from a crime scene. Not everyone can afford to go to the doctor for check-ups, nor do labs code DNA for routine blood samples. And have you honestly seen a baby after it's born? Children sometimes look nothing like their parents. My friend's baby was pale skinned when she was born, but my friend and her boyfriend are black. The baby didn't start getting her skin tone until a few weeks after being born.

[1]This law doesn't necessarily mean that they won't suffer the consequences, it just means they won't suffer any consequences from the designated places. For they may never hear the end of it from their families, and who knows if this'll look bad on their Judgment.

I'm guessing that the kind of woman who could do this isn't concerned about her soul. However, having a child out of wedlock seems to be much more accepted in our main culture. For a woman to "dispose" of a baby in a trash can or down a toilet means that she was desperate and couldn't afford the means to have an abortion or was too afraid of what would happen if someone found out. Some women don't have the fortitude to withstand the judgment of narrow-minded people.

[2]Err, isn't abortion similar to leaving the child in a dumpster? Isn't it the same as flushing a baby down the toilet? You're doing the same thing: you're putting an end to the child's life at the will of the parent(s).

According to the decision of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in the United States. Aborting a fetus or embryo is considered an acceptable practice since it cannot exist outside the mother's uterus. A baby is a living, breathing being that can exist without the mother's support by means of formula and care from someone else. In the eyes of the law, these two things are different. Anything else is between the woman and her god or gods, and it is not our place to pass judgment.

It appears that people are both willing to take in children from third-world countries and the black market and from foster care centers whether or not these people care for the child and whether or not there is paper work involved. And if legal work that goes with adoption is a financial burden on those who want to adopt, i would expect it to be worse if the system were to improve. For that may mean more taxes to provide for these improvements to these services and or more money out the the pockets of those who want to adopt. But i'm not sure how much of a financial burden it really is for these people, i mean, take a look at Mermaid's quote. That family has 7 foster children. Either these people are rich or are "rich" now.

That doesn't put food on the table or a roof over their heads or clothes on their backs. If you have not been through the process or been with someone going through it, you can't know how frustratingly painful it is and how tempting it is to just shuck the whole thing. My friends were lucky enough to have one child naturally after many, many attempts, but after the wife miscarried for the fourth time after their little girl was born, she couldn't take the heartache anymore, so they looked into adoption. They were almost awarded their child, but at the last minute, the mother changed her mind. It was like having the miscarriage all over again.

The media isn't restricted to TV. It's in books, magazines, movies, and advertisements. Women are told to act and dress a certain way and men are told to treat women a certain way. I fully believe that if women were not so objectified, then they would be cherished and respected and we would have less cases of rape, less underage sex as girls try to secure the affection of a boy because that's what they've been told gives them worth, and a much more happy society. Unfortunately, sex sells and since men aren't willing to objectify themselves and women have been conditioned since before time began, then our sex must suffer.

[truefusion 3]

[1]I'm not sure where you live, but here in America, it's illegal to take a sample of DNA without consent unless it's from a crime scene. [2]Not everyone can afford to go to the doctor for check-ups, [2:2]nor do labs code DNA for routine blood samples. [3]And have you honestly seen a baby after it's born? Children sometimes look nothing like their parents. My friend's baby was pale skinned when she was born, but my friend and her boyfriend are black. The baby didn't start getting her skin tone until a few weeks after being born.

[1]I live in the states as well, but i don't care about laws that prevent justice.

[2]This is where blood drives and [3 (my response to it)] would help.

[2:2]This is one of the reasons why i took up the assumption that the interest in the child's life is not short lived, because i know that child has little to no hope in receiving justice after death (if not found alive) in this life.

[3]I did not say to compare and contrast the child with their parent(s).

 

[1]I'm guessing that the kind of woman who could do this isn't concerned about her soul. [...] [2]For a woman to "dispose" of a baby in a trash can or down a toilet means that she was desperate and couldn't afford the means to have an abortion or was too afraid of what would happen if someone found out. [3]Some women don't have the fortitude to withstand the judgment of narrow-minded people.

[1]I beg to differ: [2].

[3]Then the Baby Moses Law would be just in this case, for it asks no questions and makes no comments.

 

[1]According to the decision of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in the United States. Aborting a fetus or embryo is considered an acceptable practice since it cannot exist outside the mother's uterus. A baby is a living, breathing being that can exist without the mother's support by means of formula and care from someone else. In the eyes of the law, these two things are different. [2]Anything else is between the woman and her god or gods, and it is not our place to pass judgment.

[1]The only difference i see is that one living being is inside an enclosed area and the other living being is outside that area. In the end, they're both a living being. This decision and law, of which i already knew of, does not have a good excuse.

[2]You can't save without making some kind of judgment.

 

[1]That doesn't put food on the table or a roof over their heads or clothes on their backs. [2]If you have not been through the process or been with someone going through it, you can't know how frustratingly painful it is and how tempting it is to just shuck the whole thing. My friends were lucky enough to have one child naturally after many, many attempts, but after the wife miscarried for the fourth time after their little girl was born, she couldn't take the heartache anymore, so they looked into adoption. They were almost awarded their child, but at the last minute, the mother changed her mind. It was like having the miscarriage all over again.

[1]Wait, what doesn't? You've lost me here... And context doesn't help.

[2]Yeah, your friends were lucky from their experience, and you provide their story which proves the first part of my statement. For everyone needs a reason to do something whether or not their intentions were pure.

 

[1]The media isn't restricted to TV. It's in books, magazines, movies, and advertisements. [2]Women are told to act and dress a certain way and men are told to treat women a certain way. I fully believe that if women were not so objectified, then they would be cherished and respected and we would have less cases of rape, less underage sex as girls try to secure the affection of a boy because that's what they've been told gives them worth, and a much more happy society. Unfortunately, sex sells and since men aren't willing to objectify themselves and women have been conditioned since before time began, then our sex must suffer.

[1]Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that it was limited to T.V. alone. I just mentioned what i thought was widely used or, to be more precise, what i have found to be most effective (but this is limited to my observation).

[2]Unfortunately, the ones that are willing to cause a change for the good have no power, and if they did, they may become corrupt or taken out of power.