After a few years, my ex maid looked for her then 6/7yo child. For money. She pointedly told my relative that she has 0 intention to get to know the child, but she just wants my relative to “buy” that child from her because she needs money back then. The child whom I like to refer to as my cousin, was deeply hurt. So the way I see it, instead of forcing a mother who refuse to have connection with the child to keep the child, it’s less hurtful to leave the child with someone caring.
Finally, I want to clarify that I fully respect your opinions on the drop box. I just hope maybe you can take a look at it from another perspective. I feel that the idea of this is not to cut the ties between mothers and babies, but to give a new hope for ashamed mothers to live a new life, and for the babies to not… at least not sold? Or die in the cold… Sorry again if I offend you in any ways. (Anon C) - 3
sigh. where do i begin. this is an old message that i got when a bunch of people were messaging me about the baby box. i’m just getting around to answering, but i do hope this person is still reading.
i have never stated that women should be forced to raise children that they don’t want to raise. i do believe that mothers should have the right to choose adoption. but i have written time and again about how this word “choice” is a tricky one.
i have also never said that i think the purpose of the baby box is to cut ties between mothers and their children. HOWEVER, whether or not that is the goal is not relevant because that is what it DOES. let me repeat that, regardless of the purpose - in reality, that is EXACTLY what it does. as to your suggestion that the baby box gives “a new hope for ashamed mothers to live a new life” - i saw i’m all for mothers having the right to live a new life without shame. but that right DOES NOT and will never trump the child’s basic right to their birth information. PERIOD. the baby box takes that right away from the child. PERIOD. mothers who choose adoption should by all means have the chance to live without shame - after they fulfill the proper requirements to ensure an ethical adoption for their child. that is a minimum requirement, people.
as to your suggestion that if not for the babybox, the child would get sold or die in the cold, i say 1) what do you think adoption agencies are doing when they send children for adoption? do you think they are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts for free? adoption agencies have a history of exploiting vulnerable families in order to send children for adoption. they also have a history of negligently sending children who were lost (not orphans) and/or purposefully falsifying records in order to make children orphans so they could send for adoption. now, why do you think they do that? here’s a list of salaries for adoption agency executives. now tell me that those babies are not being sold. 2) the idea that if not for the babybox, i’ve written about it before here, but i’ll say it again: mothers who leave their children in a babybox clearly exhibit that they understand that abandoning babies on the road to die is wrong by the very fact that they’ve chosen to go to the babybox and not abandon in the street. assuming that if the babybox was not there, they would abandon them on the side of the road is faulty logic. by the same logic alone, it is just as reasonable to assume that if the babybox was not there, they would go one step further (not one step back) and ensure the baby is adopted ethically (which the babybox does not allow for). having worked extensively with unwed mothers in korea (as well as women who lost their children by adoption - almost always through coercion or force) i can say with confidence that the babybox simply provides a moral grey space for mothers who would otherwise give up for ethical adoption or choose to raise their child (if economic and social support were available). even worse, creates a situation (like mine), when people who are not the mother (or father) can give up for adoption.