I don't dispute any of your statements.
I merely find it irritating that even here, in this article, someone (the author) felt it necessary to promote a certain agenda.
I very much doubt that many of the women placing their children into this "Baby Box" did so on the basis of a mutual, serious agreement with the fathers. Speaking of "parents" supports the deceitful talking-point that, indeed, both parents were involved and agreed to this serious decision. In actual fact, I am quite sure that the vast majority of the women were acting in desperation, without any "father" in sight.
Regards,
I agree with your analysis of the desperation. In many cases the father is not in sight-—but in many other cases, both here and with abortion, the father contributes to the desperation.
However, in writing about a situation where facts are largely lacking, I think there is a point in defaulting to the ideal, however unlikely it is. This is in some ways the opposite of such monstrosities as “His husband” or “her wife.”
If all parties involved are aware of “parental” options other than abortion, I think the father might both stick around more often, be drawn into the decision more often, and be constructively involved.
I agree that paternal involvement here was highly unlikely, and that the maternal involvement was not ideal, but writing the article to encourage society to move from awful to somewhat less awful, in this case, is something that I applaud.
With mutual regard.