Althouse: Surrendered baby.

December 26, 2010

Surrendered baby.

Noel.

26 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...: I feel like I've read about this story somewhere else today.; 12/26/10, 10:45 AM
Bill said...: "The praise goes to the mother for making the right decision," Hilton said.

You can make the argument that this program is an unfortunate necessity, but let's have none of this 'making the right decision' crap.; 12/26/10, 11:36 AM
traditionalguy said...: The smell of a newborn baby in the morning is... the smell of Victory. I expect that she will enjoy a full life span and be a blessing to many around her.; 12/26/10, 11:39 AM
Unknown said...: Um, if the baby wasn't abused, why would the mother be prosecuted if she gave it up to someone in authority she thought would take care of it? If she left it in a trash can, I can see, but why prosecute someone for trying to be responsible (if a bit after the fact)?

Then again, it's another life placed in the highly capable hands of the State.

O! If only there were a Lebensborn Foundation to expedite these things !

(and don't worry, if The Zero and Berwick have their way, there will be); 12/26/10, 11:46 AM
The Musket said...: Once a woman gets pregnant there are only 3 choices: abortion, keep the child, or surrender the child for someone else to raise (usually called adoption). Having read the article and knowing the circumstances surrounding the surrender but not the birth I believe we can say it was the right thing for the mother to do. For a reason unknown to us, the mother decided she couldn't raise the child and so gave the baby up for adoption.

It may not have been the right decision for the mother to get pregnant - we don't know those details - but, once pregnant, if you can't raise the child yourself, adoption is the right choice.; 12/26/10, 12:07 PM
The Musket said...: @edutcher: hopefully the baby will pass through the state very quickly, find a loving home with awesome parents and grow up to be a constitutionally minded libertarian.; 12/26/10, 12:10 PM
Sprezzatura said...: What will this surrender end up costing CA? What will it cost If you add up all of the gov expenditures from fire fighters' time to medical care to getting to a completed adoption?

I suppose we could throw in the costs of K-12 education. And, possibly SCHIP, school lunches, and so on.

To be really complete we'd need to suss out what it costs for this child to use roads and parks, to be protected by law enforcement, to use libraries and other publicly funded services.

What are we up to? Thirty grand? Fifty? A hundred? More?

Is it socialist to eagerly support this support for this child? What ever it's called, it ain't cheap. And, whatever it's called, sign me (as a tax payer) up.; 12/26/10, 12:41 PM
Synova said...: I'm in favor of parents being able to give up their children on the doorsteps of fire and police stations and hospitals without fear of prosecution. I know that some people (my brother for one) thinks that this will encourage more irresponsible behavior but I think that it's worse to push overwhelmed parents into the other options available to them. The worst thing that could happen is more babies being born and I refuse to see a baby in the world as a bad thing.

At the least, a baby or child given up this way can be made available for adoption immediately instead of going through a years long foster care process. (And I'm even including the teenagers brought to a fire station in Nebraska that time. The parents shouldn't get to change their mind, of course, if they were only bluffing because they're trying to prove to their child that they Really Mean It.); 12/26/10, 12:44 PM
Ann Althouse said...: You have 3 days to give up the baby, no questions asked. That's encouraging women to have babies so they can amuse themselves with a baby for 3 days.; 12/26/10, 12:55 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "That's encouraging women to have babies so they can amuse themselves with a baby for 3 days. And, then they'll get a two week vacation before unsurrendering w/in the allowed fourteen days, so that the amusement can continue."

Fixed.; 12/26/10, 12:59 PM
campy said...: It's great that women have choices even post-birth, but the sperm donor should still be required to pay child support.

If he doesn't like it, tell him he should've kept his pants zipped.; 12/26/10, 12:59 PM
Synova said...: Three days postpartum is criminal. There isn't a mother on the planet who can make a rational decision during that time.; 12/26/10, 12:59 PM
fivewheels said...: "Praise goes to the mother"? I don't think that's right. "Credit" maybe. But really, the best I think you can say is that it could have been worse.; 12/26/10, 1:02 PM
campy said...: I originally read the post headline as "Sundered baby."; 12/26/10, 1:33 PM
Fred4Pres said...: I am glad the baby is okay.; 12/26/10, 1:35 PM
CatherineM said...: Synova - at least she has 14 days to change her mind.

Praise, credit...she assessed her situation, already has 3 kids so she knows what she's up against, perhaps the dad just split...the baby is healthy, and she cared for it the last 9 months. I will give her praise for taking care of the baby in uteri and credit for knowing now it's just too much now that it's here.

As an aside, I had friends who tried to adopt for years only to have the mother change it's mind at the end. They ended up adopting with an agency that uses older mothers and those who have kids. They have no fantasies about motherhood and my friends were finally able to adopt.

I doubt a newborn will be in "the system," long. It's older kids who have a hard time because they probably aren't as cute and it's assumed they will have "issues."; 12/26/10, 3:01 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Althouse: You have 3 days to give up the baby, no questions asked. That's encouraging women to have babies so they can amuse themselves with a baby for 3 days.

Plus all the attention they get from being a pregnant woman; that lasts a few months.; 12/26/10, 5:21 PM
Revenant said...: What will this surrender end up costing CA?

The average person contributes more to society than they consume. So probably nothing?; 12/26/10, 7:20 PM
Synova said...: Catherine, I wasn't speaking to this particular incident but to the three-day rule in general. I think that parents should be able to give up their children without repercussion because a parent in a position to need to do so probably ought to, and a parent who doesn't need to do so but chooses to do so probably ought to as well. That's my opinion on the matter in general. Specifically though, if there is going to be some sort of cut-off deadline, requiring that new mothers make this weighty decision during a postpartum hormone storm is a terrible thing to do. Even with some time to change her mind. I'd rather there be no mind-changing allowed once the decision is made but leeway to make that decision with more capacity in the first place.

Obviously not everyone is the same but I've delivered four babies and my opinion is that for at least a portion of pregnancy and postpartum recovery that women are more likely to approach a level of legal incompetence than otherwise. There are reasons that our society refuses to consider this, reasons from a variety of points of view, but wishful thinking and agreed upon fictions are not made true because of that.; 12/26/10, 7:36 PM
Penny said...: "DEAD Lines", abortion to some, take precedence in our American discussion.

Yet no one out there to work up a head of steam about the arbitrarily legislated number...14... for the "sinning" or "saintly" mother of a surrendered baby?; 12/26/10, 8:22 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Synova's point is a good one.; 12/26/10, 9:42 PM
Penny said...: "Synova's point is a good one."

Agree that her point is a good one for her, Freeman.

It "suits", and we have four of those in a deck of cards.; 12/26/10, 10:01 PM
The Musket said...: I believe that if the baby is adopted by a competent set of parents, she can grow up to be a plus to society all around rather than a drain. If the mother kept her, but couldn't take care of her, she would most definitely end up as a drain on society and possibly cause the other children to be a drain on society - if they're not already.

Ideally - the mother wouldn't have gotten pregnant, but since she did - surrendering the child seems to be a good thing in this case.

Let me assure you all that most women don't get pregnant to get attention - especially if they have 3 kids already. You don't get that much attention, and the attention isn't worth it.; 12/26/10, 10:51 PM
Kirby Olson said...: I thought this would be about Jesus' escape from Herod into Egypt.; 12/26/10, 11:03 PM
Saint Croix said...: Considering that there are 1.3 million abortions a year, I think she made a great decision. Virgins on the blog should wait for their maturity before discussing. The rest of us really ought to know better.

There are lots of people desperate for children. She made somebody really happy.; 12/27/10, 5:46 AM
Fernandinande said...: The praise goes to the mother for making the right decision

Bwahaha! Imagine the "praise" a man would get .... if a man had this legal "right", which he doesn't.; 12/27/10, 8:34 AM