Safe Haven

Posted Friday, October 31, 2008, at 10:41 AM
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Three days? I hadn't heard that so I'm glad you made reference to it. It will take the legislature longer than 72 hours to decide on the language, etc. on this issue. It seems a little irrational to make an assumption that ALL mothers (or grandparents or fathers depending on the circumstances) can make that kind of a decision that quickly. While some mothers will have contemplated their decision before giving birth and act accordingly, there are others who won't know until the reality sets in. In many ways it is the mother who takes some time to carefully consider what to do next that stands a chance to act to the best welfare of the child.

    I, personally, could not fathom abandoning a child. Circumstances have caused me to understand the true gift my only teenager is and how fortunate I am to have him. But the reality is there are so many other families who's circumstances are not the same and to judge based on our experiences only is absurd.

    -- Posted by interested_in-law on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 2:01 PM
  • The way the law is, as I understand, is that any 'child' (under majority age) may be left for protective action. What, on earth, is wrong with that????? Are we so calassed (deliberately misspelled) that we feel a young person, less than majority age, should be rejected, and not helped, because they, I presume, are too old to be 'cute and cuddly?' If so, shame on us.

    Perhaps someone realized that we cannot arrest, convict, and jail, anyone who releases their children to public care. Wow, we wouldn't want to have a 'non-way' to not be able to imprison a person.

    Sorry folks, I am concerned, when our governing body seems to be more interested in punishing a person, than saving a life, be it physical, spiritual, psychological, or social.

    If a person is still a child, by law, then the law should have facility to care for that child should the parent not have resources to do so themselves. To make the decision a serious matter, perhaps the law should say that once given away, the parent has no right to regain custody, so-as-to preclude any frivolous use of the Safe Haven Law.

    What-ever, three days to make a life-changing decision is absolutely wrong to expect, when the lawmakers cannot accomplish that type miracle.

    That's all, I'm done. Think on it folks.

    In service to Messiah, His Shalom on one and all. Arley Steinhour

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Oct 31, 2008, at 4:06 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: