Interesting, I didn't know there even was such a thing as a baby moses law. It sounds like a good thing to me, with all the babies being dropped of in dumpsters, or being raised in situations that are not fit to raise a child in.

I doubt if it in any way encourages teenages to be any more promisquious then they allready are, how many do you think stop and say, well, sure, lets have sex, I can always drop off the baby at the fire station if I get knocked up??? I really don't think that they think at all. Raging teenage hormones are a mighty force to contend with.

I also don't think that droping off a baby lets the girl escape with out punishment for her actions. 9 months of pregnance is no walk in the park, and then there is the lifetime of wondering what happened to your baby...... and beating yourself up for all the stupid mistakes you made in your life.

Reply

While I do not always agree with law and I admit that the justice system is flawed, I would think it a violation of my rights for the government to be tracking its citizens' DNA. We don't even have everyone's fingerprints in the database, we don't need to be tracking DNA. That kind of information can so easily be misused. I also think that there aren't enough people donating blood that we don't need to scare away more potential donors by asking the Red Cross (btw a private company not affiliated with the government) or other blood drive operators to test for DNA. Their services and resources are much better spent doing what the organization intended to do. As for your third point, I'm sorry, I misread your original post. However, not all babies are born in hospitals and most hospitals are overworked and understaffed as it is. And my response to your second point would suffice for this as well. We don't need to scare away women giving birth by the threat of reporting them to the police. The whole point of this law is that she is allowed to give up her baby, no questions asked. You have no idea what their thought process has or hasn't been or the anguish that she may or may not have experienced. It is not our place to judge, only to give her the compassion she needs.

Not everyone believes in a soul, and there are some who believe it exists, but are not concerned with it. There are a multitude of beliefs in this world and many of them differ from yours.

The debate on abortion is on another thread, but that is neither here nor there. Whether you agree with the law or not, the law is still in effect and abortion is an acceptable practice in the eyes of the law. Anything else is between each person and his/her god or gods. That being said, I will not discuss theology with you because I choose to honor and respect the beliefs of others. I have spent too many years exploring my own beliefs and coming to terms with the religion I was raised to believe to disrespect someone else's.

For clarity's sake:

The rich that you speak of will not give families the financial support that's necessary to raise children. They're costly little beasts Honestly, though, the adoption process is flawed as is the legal system; however, it would take a lot of money to cut bureaucracy and make the necessary changes to make them both efficient and effective. But some of the more deserving parents simply cannot afford to go through the process financially while someone like Angelina Jolie and Madonna can simply pick up a child from some third-world country. The joys and pains of parenting shouldn't be reserved for the rich who can afford to have children.

IMO, advertising and music is much more pervasive than TV perhaps because, like you, I rarely watch it. Advertisements are much harder to escape and must encapsulate an entire message in a single image for print or 30 seconds of air time radio, tv, etc. Unfortunately, money makes the world go round, we cannot exist as a society without placing economic value on things, whether it's beads or coins or cattle. Appealing to someone's moral sensibility won't sell nearly as much as appealing to their base desires. Kudos to those who can rise above it, but for the rest of us... we are only human.

@Mermaid - As much as I am grateful and appreciative of your support, I urge you to make your own informed decision on the matter and believe what your heart tells you. I do not claim to be right. I only state what I believe to be right for myself, and I have spent much time discovering my beliefs and choosing the path that I want to live. Perhaps that will change as I grow and learn more, only time will tell. But truefusion has many good points that I choose not to agree with because of my own experiences and filters from my knowledge base. Be a free thinker and believe what your heart believes.

Reply

Hello,

<<<<<OFF TOPIC>>>>>>

This topic turned out to be a good one. Mermaid I would appreciate it if you would write the points written by Tiki that you think were better than truefusion's So that it is easier for members to follow the debate.

Thanks for understanding

I honestly thought that both of them have a good debate though. They brought out the pro's and cons of the idea of handing a baby to a fire station

Reply

Wow I didn't mean to start a fight

Just kidding.

Honestly, I must agree with tiki. Sorry truefusion. But tiki is right.

Reply

[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 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]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]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]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.

Reply