[JimRed]

The idea is to encourage people who would otherwise kill their children to turn them over to the state... giving them a chance to take back the baby would make them more likely to give it up in the first place.

Yes, I understand that part, but it's fuzzy thinking (typical libspeak). One who might put the child in danger of death rather than "turn it in" is beyond the pale. The child should NEVER be given back to someone who abandons it, even safely. The "no questions asked, no punishment" part should be sufficient motivation.

Sorry for the delayed reply; I had to FReep & run yesterday!

[JimRed]

...(typical libspeak).

Make that "typical libthink". Oh, wait, they don't think; they FEEL!

[xm177e2]

it's fuzzy thinking (typical libspeak). One who might put the child in danger of death rather than "turn it in" is beyond the pale. The child should NEVER be given back to someone who abandons it, even safely.

So the mother might put the child in mortal danger in the future, as evidenced by her choice not to (by safely abandoning the it in the first place)?

Mothers who change their minds about abandonment may not be regular June Cleavers, but women who make the choice to take their babies back would be doing so without that same psychological pressure and thus I should think would be very unlikely to harm the child. Women generally do not choose to take in children for the purpose of slaughter*. When they do kill their children, it is usually because they are feeling extreme psychological pressure and are not in a decent state of mind.

* This is perhaps the nicest thing I have ever said about women. Don't expect me to top it any time soon. </kidding>