To be horrified by these ‘baby boxes’?

[TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl]

This just came up on my newsfeed and I’m absolutely horrified by the whole concept of women abandoning their newborns in the US:

www.newschannel10.com/2023/02/10/newborn-surrendered-baby-box-installed-less-than-3-months-ago/?fbclid=IwAR1qz7BbrIeF390b6YXl4mAscw82cTvt-Bzwnp_LMaZMMCjBcpltEZGHav0#ldzrvrvoa7ecauugx04

Im NOT having a go at these women, and this is supposedly to prevent newborns being abandoned in unsafe places.

But surely the answer isn’t “Hey brand new mum with raging hormones, probably depression, who is tired, stressed and not thinking straight - put your baby here for a nice new family” - it should be about supporting mums with PND, improving practical support, healthcare and rights of new mothers and reproductive rights. Not just “Oh well you don’t feel OK today so probably best you don’t be a mum, here’s a little box to pop your baby in”.

My spidey senses were tingling so when I did a bit of further research, the woman who started these is, of course, fiercely anti abortion. So that’s what it’s all about. it’s about not allowing women their reproductive rights but making them go through a birth they don’t want, have the trauma of having a baby they don’t want but it’s OK, and the heartache of giving them away - no harm done ey 😡

That’s working on the assumption that all women want their babies and it’s just support they need. Except while this is true in some cases, there absolutely are women that don’t want a baby, no matter the degree of support offered. Pressuring someone to keep a baby they don’t want poses it’s own issues, and some of them end fatally.

Making adoption harder may support some women, but it absolutely victimizes others.

Exactly!

Yup. I believe first modern ones now in Europe were in Germany and they have quite a few. So do neighbouring countries. For decades.

It's not some US conspiracy from adoption agencies or something...

babies carried by the very same women who are likely to need baby boxes are NOT readily adoptable.

@DesertRose64 there's no denying that similar means have been around for centuries, it's another route for the desperate, a humanitarian safety net for use in extremis.

The current promotion of them in the US (for that is what it is) to serve a political agenda, is to subjugate women and use these as an alternative to abortion and access to birth control, further erode the possibility of more appropriate social support and further the vested interests of the adoption industry - using children for commercial gain

Again, I quote the US Supreme Court Judge in the preamble to the Roe v Wade report of last year and wanting to overturn it in order to "maintain the domestic supply of infants" (for adoption

It's not what you think it is at first glance, look deeper and try to see what's going on here!!!

"Not readily adoptable"

Christ, here we go.

What do you actually mean here I wonder?

Oh yes, you're someone he sees adoption as a cure for fertility issues.

A third or fourth choice if "we couldn't have children of our own"

It doesn't make people the heroes that you think it does.

This attitude perpetuates the conditions that lead to babies and children being abandoned in the first place.

That is incorrect and not a nice thing to say at all. Maybe they were raped and live somewhere where birth control and abortion are hard to come by.

Or young teenager who's boyfriend is saying not his problem and she is terrified to tell her parents.

Not every single mum is a loser on drugs

Likely to need and not readily adoptable as you put it is very unkind

On the flip side could it be argued that they stick it out and try to parent and still be in the same boat that they just cannot be a good parent?

It always makes me 🙄 when people in comfortable lives are indulgently ‘uncomfortable’ at the tough choices made by people less fortunate.

Bizarre argument. Completely ignored my post and my question.

As I said, even if all the support in world was available. There will be still women who do not want to keep their baby.

Relinquishing a baby, if you truly do not want to raise the baby, shouldn’t be hard because it’s rare that the mother keeping the baby is guaranteed to be the better option.

Adoption causes lots of trauma. As does being raised by someone who doesn’t want you or is not capable of raising you.

Your theory about abusers being helped in their crime, by these boxes is dangerously close to saying women who are victims should be forced into a position where they have to out their abuser. And the incorrect assumption that abusers are caught if these boxes didn’t exist.

Those boxes should be there FOR the victims of abuse, rape etc. Especially, those who feel they can not go to family, friends etc. Even in these situations, you can give the person all the support in the world, some will find raising the baby of their rapist too painful and traumatic. Causing more trauma to the child. Or not be ready to break away from their abuser but also acknowledge they can not bring a baby into a situation. Or they may just not want to raise the baby.

Even with lots of support available, some people will not want to raise their baby. In that situation, who is helped by making it more difficult to relinquish their baby? it doesn’t help the mother or child. That’s the question I asked. But you ignored.

Women having the choice means the actual choice. Support doesn’t mean pressuring into only one decision.

This. Thank you! I tried writing a post to similar effect earlier but I found it too hard to put into words. In the absence of other context then sure, these boxes are a humanitarian intervention. If you look at the context of everything else going on in the US (as the OP did when she noted the anti-abortion credentials of some of the people promoting them) then there's something systemic and very worrying happening.

...and @greenspaces4peace that attitude towards birth mothers as the evil, irresponsible and not worthy is a trope that perpetuates lifelong shame on them and the children that they give birth do.

The perception of adoption and what it really means is so out of whack and dominated by the beatification of adopting parents at the expense of adoptees and birth mothers it brings me to tears. Cop on!

I’m not interested in anything said that ends with multiple exclamation marks.

And you’d be wise to remember the old saying, you catch more flies with cider than vinegar.

"I’m not interested in anything said that ends with multiple exclamation marks."

That alone should not invalidate a person's perspective especially if they are correct?

@DesertRose64 it's for emphasis and indicates the frustration that I feel towards those that can't seem to engage in any sort of critical thinking.

'The USA' does not have stringent abortion laws. Some states do. Some states have retained the right. In some states the discussion on restricting abortion will never happen. Abortion access is a state remit.

I live in a state that has not changed abortion access, where politicians' electoral campaigns include a pro choice platform. My state is surrounded by states that restrict abortion access and there has been a huge uptick in travel for abortion services since the SC decision and subsequent legislation in neighboring states.

There are also baby boxes here. This is because it's far better to place the baby in a safe, warm spot than out in a dumpster or on some cold doorstep. Before the legislation was passed that resulted in the baby boxes, there were many tragic deaths if babies born alove and healthy, every year.

Baby boxes are located at the five fire stations, at the police station, and at both hospital emergency rooms in the town where I live. There are no questions asked at the time of drop off apart from perhaps a question about medical attention needed for the mother. It is understood that the attraction of a baby box is the anonymity and the ability to walk away with no judgement attached plus the benefit of knowing your baby will not die of cold or starvation, or be bitten by ants or other critters in some dirty alley. But there is cctv, and strenuous efforts are made to find the mothers and provide support, both medical and emotional. Iirc, a mother has 30 days to reclaim the baby if she changes her mind.

Women don't always see abortion as a viable alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. Women don't always see social services as potentially supportive allies, or they feel they have a situation in hand and don't want interference. Some are in denial about their pregnancy until it becomes impossible to disbelieve. There is usually a lot wrong in the life of a woman who places her baby in a safe haven box; a hidden or unwanted pregnancy and a baby to deal with are only the most visible part, the tip of the iceberg.

Babies can be left in a box up to 30 days of age in my state, though nobody is going to argue that a woman went over that time limit. It's not always a matter of raging post natal hormones, panic, or confusion, that cause the decision. There can be PND, or an abusive relationship, destitution, relapse into drug use having given up during pregnancy - any number of different reasons behind the decision really, in the 30 day time frame. Yes, some states have much shorter time frames, and post natal mental issues can play a part, but usually a woman has planned enough in advance to locate the baby box and find some way to get there within 72 hours to a week of giving birth.

@ADHDchange my comment was pertaining to the health issues of the children that will have been abandoned.
i will need to see more stats but from my knowledge and experience the babies are mainly from drug addicted rough living women and not be healthy little ones which will be quickly chosen for adoption.
many i presume will be in social care for the rest of their lives.

Yabu and incredibly naive

Trust me that if I were raped pregnant I would abort asap and if forced to give birth I would not want to keep the baby at all.

This is where adoption is a choice; sorry if I am harsh but I would rather not live with he reminder of my rape and if I could not abort I would have the baby adopted for both our sakes.

I am 100 percent prochoice; if a woman wants to abort/keep the baby/put baby for adoption she should be respected in her decision.

the reminder

Mumsnet you need edit button for index finger typers like me!

But why should these babies be forced to stay with Mothers who struggle and admit they cannot do it? Why should the mothers keep the babies they cannot care for?

Why should these babies be inferior for adoption?

@Dalekjastninerels i agree no woman should be forced to keep an unwanted baby.
sadly the info is out there as to which babies are wanted for adoption, those with drug addiction and health conditions are not.

Belllalalalal you probably find my argument bizarre because you are ascribing every comment I make relating to the boxes. I was talking about relinquishment in general to. To clarify, boxes are usually used for the babies of the most vulnerable girls and women. That may be the best that can be achieved but that is horrifying if a mother is left without medical care, without support or at the continued mercy of her abuser. I am not against them any more than I am against babies being left in any other safe space but it’s a failure for mother and baby because they should be able to access something safer and more supportive.

Additionally there is no theoretical wonder state where women are offered all the support in the world (although we do see that pretty minimal support removes almost all relinquishment of babies) but for women who want to relinquish and who engage then this should be a supported process - this is hard - there will be meetings and assessments and there is a six week ‘cooling off’ period. All that exists precisely to check these women actually want their babies adopted because actually the majority who start this process voluntarily end it because actually it was the circumstances not the baby they didn’t want. There is no barrier to a woman relinquishing her baby. I have never advocated forcing a woman to keep a baby she doesn’t want but the process is intrinsically hard because it’s a vulnerable group and it is usually a hard decision. This bigger group of women m, compared to the box users, often do benefit from support with issues like domestic violence, drug use, housing problems etc and they do not benefit from relinquishment being treated like the baby is the only product if value. The American system simplifies it to the detriment of birth mothers and the UK system has more respect for all parties. A harder process can be a more rigorous and supportive one.

DesertRose64 - the Roe V Wade tragedy is chilling and that quite about maintaining the ‘domestic supply’ of infants should be something so extraordinary I should suspect a misquote or hyperbole but sadly it fits with the established trends. The use of surrogacy and commodification of women’s wombs is dreadful but also interconnected to the treatment of birth mothers.

The argument that the US adoption 'industry' is exploitative doesn't really hold water. To put it very bluntly, desirable babies are very young white babies or babies of mixed Asian and white heritage, more likely to be girls, not toddlers, not older children, not Hispanic, not African American, especially not African American boys. Also desirable are babies and toddlers from abroad who are seen as less risky (less likely to suffer FAS, or have a history of abuse or neglect, etc). Transracial adoption within the US has slowed considerably thanks to pressure from groups with well thought out opposition to it.

The exploitation argument rests on the calculation that the supply of white babies will increase once abortion access laws kick in, and the pipeline of adoption will fill with babies for the older, affluent, white couples who currently comprise the majority of adopters doesn't really square with current trends in decision making on the part of pregnant teens.

Yes, they may have sought an abortion before the SC decision. But just because abortion may no longer be an option doesn't mean adoption is the only alternative. A great many women will keep a baby, with the help of extended family and social services.

Many American public high schools have nurseries for babies and children of students and staff. American schools tend to have social workers and psychologists on staff. Students don't necessarily have to chase down social service support, or hike miles out of their way to a nursery every morning with a baby, or go on a bus (or buses) to a school miles from home when they become pregnant. If local schools can't accommodate them, a special school will provide school buses that pick up students and their babies at their homes. Title IX is a very commendable piece of legislation.

My local high school always has a number of pregnant girls registered, aged 14 to 18. They are excused from daily PE and receive an elevator pass, and get a tutor from the school at home when they have their babies and take their maternity leave. Pregnant girls who get the boot from local private schools find a welcome in the local public schools.