Mike

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:40:19 -0500

6 months after the law has passed and there hasn't been a single baby abandoned in Massachusetts. In the 4 years before the law was passed there were 13 babies abandoned, 6 died, 4 came close to death by exposure, 3 were surrendered in circumstances similar to safe haven laws. Do opposition advocates want to return to that record?

ed

Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:26:47 -0500

"The safety of children is something hard to argue against in any situation" Well, I'll take you up on that. Notwithstanding the awkward wording of the sentence, the statement screams out for the "slippery slope" counter-argument. Where do you draw the line between child safety and authoritarian nannying? Obviously no one's going to come out against child safety, and it takes balls (or ovaries, depending on your gender/political persuasion) about the size of grains of sand to say "Won't somebody please think of the children?" in public. That's why we're subjected to hysterically rigid broadcasting standards - because little Jimmy saw Janet Jackson's right breast for 1/3 of a second. Are our children less safe because they saw that boob? No, and it's intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. This is not to say I don't support the BSH law. It's a great idea. The "child safety above all else" argument gets my goat, though.

Bostonist: Baby, B..B..B..Baby Safe Haven!

Mike

ed