It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Spread of ‘baby boxes’ in Europe alarms United Nations

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:55 AM
I'm sure they're needed but the downside is that some (probably young) mothers will use a box instead of facing up to their families, which is what they should try to do.

A young pregnant lassie might be petrified to tell, but should. My mum went mental when I first got pregnant. The next day she was buying vest and babygros.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:59 AM
Ok, so, people whine over abortion and now - of all things - whine louder when women/men 'abandon' their babies in 'boxes'.

Let me assure you - these 'boxes' are far from that. They may differ in physicality but all are monitored by an alarm system, a licensed care giver who regularly checks them and video cameras (trained on the baby).

That being said? Seems like women are screwed either way. Give up the child? Ya screwed. Abortion? Ya screwed again.

What direction does this all point?


Just what the NWO ordered.

Wake up people.

edit on 11-6-2012 by silo13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:37 AM
I am quite shocked that such a system exists, I had never heard of this before. Yes I know of the old 'leave the baby in a basket with a note at the door of a church/orphanage' but this just feels different.

I can see the logic in it, better to keep the baby safe and cared for by the nurses but what I am concerned about, especially with the introduction of how to actually have sex being given to 10, 11 and 12 year olds in school, is could it belittle the responsibility/importance/value of having a baby if it becomes seen/used as a 'no consequences for having unprotected sex' system, especially attractive to underage girls who were not being responsible in the first place.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by protocolsoflove
Despicable. Give some globalists in Geneva your baby so they can send it to a SRA dungeon.

My thoughts exactly.

The type of people who run the UN would love to get their hands on these babies.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by CthulhuMythos

So again "she" is not being responsible. It takes two to get this job done but it only takes one to have his way with her. Why is "he" never responsible for keeping it in his pants?

How can children be responsible for such things when our entire Western culture is currently absorbed in sexuality? Think about the signals sent out by society. It's far from a child's responsibility to succeed where the rest of (adult) society fails so visibly and so loudly.

People have very extreme reactions to things and if a girl can't tell her parents that she's pregnant, perhaps she understands why better than anyone else. I wonder how many girls can go to their mother and say that she's pregnant because her father or her brother or her uncle had his way with her. How easy does that sound to you? Does it sound better to say that she was raped at school? Or on the way home?

I have a friend from Myanmar who got pregnant at 18. She had no idea how it happened. She was raised in a very devoutly Christian environment, went to private girls' schools and was completely innocent of all things sexual. She literally didn't know how it happened. She was also from a wealthy family but even though this happened in all innocence she was still blamed for being somehow the culprit. "Nice girls don't do that." Who is to blame there?

Being a mother is hugely rewarding and it's a job that's hardest right at the time that it's most critical. We need to look at how to make things bearable during that time. There is no reason that even children as young as 10 or 12 can't have babies if her community is prepared to support that, although this is obviously not a preferable occurrence. Still, as long as it happens, it has to be handled. We can do so much better.

Again, it serves no one to lay blame at the feet of the mother. There is a father out there too. Men must consider their role in this thing too for this to be addressed justly.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:36 AM
This may well be attributable to the economic meltdown in Europe, as struggling families and couples decide that they cannot afford another mouth to feed. I am surprised it's just babies.

They don't mention the ethnicity of the babies - maybe the ethnicity cannot be determined - but Muslim culture does not encourage adoption,; orphans, even of "martyrs", are left to be institutionalized or to fend for themselves. Some of these babies may be Muslim orphans perhaps deliberately left in the baby boxes in hopes of eventually being merged into a loving (altho non-Muslim)home rather than be consigned to a grim Islamic institution.

The US has, at least in some cities, a somewhat similar system where indecisive or overstressed mothers can TEMPORARILY leave their babies, to reclaim them later (from a few days to a few months). There are some drawbacks to this system so far: It only applies to very young babies (usually less than three months old) -- yet in many situations the new mother can still count on one (or both) of the baby's grandmothers for help in the weeks immediately after the birth. The real stress may set in a couple of months later when that extra help is no longer available.

edit on 6/11/12 by Shoonra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

Karl Rove, is that you?

Are you on the payroll of the RNC or something? Every thread/post by you is either Anti-Obama or Anti-UN.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:04 AM
Thank God for baby boxes!!

Probably thousands of children (my guess) have been saved through the use of baby boxes in South America. The boxes are usually in front of orphanages or convents. They revolve. Poor people, or just people in general who wish to give up their children for adoption, place the babies in the boxes and turn the wheel. There are people on the other side who then take the baby into the orphange or the convent to care for the baby.

As the parent of a child adopted from South America ... I am fully in favor of baby boxes.

They are anon. which encourages the parents giving up the children to take them there instead of just leaving them in the streets. And they save lives and they bring (adoptive) families together.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:10 AM
reply to post by Shoonra

there may not be grandparents around in some cases. the young mother may have been shunned by all family or perhaps a victim of abuse herself. there are so many circumstances where support to the vunerable could be missing.
whatever their decision, they have to live with it.
i knew of three lasses who had abortions in their teens, (wasn't me), and they changed after the deed was done, mostly drinking far more than they could handle and having a very bitter outlook from then on. whatever the decision, it's for life and won't go away.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Oh there's nothing wrong with them in theory.

I just fail to see a conservative could approve of baby boxes and yet, disapprove of the "nanny state" that insists on paying and taking care of them.

Then again, I may be reading too much between the lines.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:20 AM
After reading the first page, have to say, I'm glad the boxes are there too. Those boxes saved infant lives, who are now adopted.

So many people on ATS write in opposition of abortion, while I still maintain that it needs to be covered 100%, and readily available with stealth programs for teens who don't want to anger their parents, but come at the cost of a mandatory course in contraceptives, in the first Trimester of pregnancy and for no reason be performed after.

Yet so many speak out against abortions, they also seem to think that carrying full term and not being able to care for the child is wrong.

You can't have it both ways.

As to the nanny state, I don't believe in money but the Venus Project with full services to all people, stay at home parents and equally abundant disabled people, elderly. No poverty. Really really good services. We're beyond entitled as co-owners of this world and all its resources and not animals, but working for our wings. That is the testing of earth in fact. This whole issue is the testing for earth. Its all about equality.

In a monied system, I don't believe in old age security, unemployment insurance, welfare, disability income, but believe in ONE GUARANTEED INCOME that everyone gets, there is absolutely No Stigma to getting it, and no expectation of abuse of people or children, but the amount varies according to the situation and ALL people are middle middle class for their family size as the bottom level of income, but there is no inflation, for all banks are co-ops run by the people with either no interest or tiny interest and All necessities such as Food, Housing and Heating, Medical and Education including University are controlled like the Norway model and even a disabled person or a stay at home single mother can afford land and an earthship home because there is no upfront money needed and the rent to own on anything is 1/3 income including utlities, and the services were so darn good that no one would allow a family of 5 to be in a 2 bedroom run down hovel, all things were like this.

Fishing in the Phoenix Earthship


Anything else is massive crimes against humanity and evil beyond belief.
edit on 11-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

You need a license for just about anything except being a parent. I work with a child abuse awareness and prevention group, and while it may seem unconscionable, the reality is that it is there. The step is at least better than what we have had to find and deal with is the dumpster, dirty back alley, or worse keeping the child and abusing them from neglect or worse.

The sad reality is that I would rather see the baby box than a death any day. At least the child may have a shot at adoption with the baby box. It is truly a sad state of affairs and one I fight against every day. Programs like safe haven are commendable. Ask any policeman or EMT that has found a dumpster baby.

Until laws are changed, and we make these attrocities unthinkable because of the resounding punishment then we will need these programs.

Sad, sad, sad....
edit on 11/6/2012 by mantarey because: missed word

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:22 AM
"Baby boxes" are better than abortion...

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by The Sword
Oh there's nothing wrong with them in theory.

There's nothing wrong with them in practice. They work.

I just fail to see a conservative could approve of baby boxes and yet, disapprove of the "nanny state" that insists on paying and taking care of them.

The 'baby boxes' in South America - (my daughter is from Bolivia) - are attached to convents, hospitals and sometimes to police stations (not often). On the other side of the revolving box are volunteers or professional health care workers who take care of the baby. My daughter came from a Catholic orphanage. They were all volunteers. Some of the orphanages with the revolving boxes are attached to convent/orphanages with nuns taking care of the children.

Tax money does't pay for any of it in Bolivia.
I can't speak to the financial aspects baby boxes in Europe.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Domo1
It seems so ridiculous that it's almost funny, but actually highlights a real tragedy.

I suppose you can't really call someone who has an unwanted pregnancy and wishes to get rid of the child via dumping 'responsible', but perhaps we could ensure that when handing over a child it is actually given to someone face to face, even if anonymously.

I'm not judging people that feel ill equipped to deal with the responsibility of having a child. I certainly don't feel responsible enough to manage it. It's amazing me and my dog are fed and bathed regularly . That being said, how could you put a baby in a box? What about medical issues in the child? Do you just leave a note? What if the alarm system were to fail and the little one sits there for too long? What if the little one starts choking before someone can get to it?

i bet you that there is a closed circuit TV camera trained on the baby-box

the person dropping off the infant can & will be identified if it is found that any mistreatment or injuries are found least that protocol makes the most sense to me

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by St Udio

You know what? That's such a huge part of what's wrong with the world: Fault finding. Why do people think they have the right to pass judgment on others for every single little thing? And who are you to say what's a big thing and what's not? What makes you think that just *your* moral code is the right one?

It *could* be possible for us to take these kids in without any form of prejudice at all and let them grow up in orphanages (if no one ever wants them) and as well to make it okay for that to happen. The way I see it, we have a lot of room to make things easier on this planet in just about every sector and every aspect and facet therein, so why don't we do it? Why don't we just make the best situation out of every scenario that occurs? If we approach everything with open hearts and open minds, showing gratitude (and *really* feeling it) for every little blessing that is rained down upon us, we might just turn things around here on old Planet Earth.

Death to fault finding. Long live love!

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by St Udio

The whole purpose of the box's is to keep it annonymous, to prevent them not dropping the infant off, out of self protection, and thus causing injury or death. So the box's save lives.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:53 AM
This is insane.
One of the most humane ways to avoid having to kill an unwanted baby (for whatever reasons the mother has) is badspoken about in this forum?

In my humble opinion, everyone who dislikes the idea of those baby boxes b/c "the child needs to know their parents" didn't think that argument through.

There was a major outcry over one of these boxes - not because it was installed. No, the darn box was blocked and the parent (whoever they were) DROPPED THE CHILD IN A LIGHT BOX OUTSIDE THE BABY BOX! At -10°C!

THAT is the difference between having baby boxes and not having them! They save lives!

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by intrptr

Why do you insist on blaming the mother? Any number of variables exist that prevent a person from raising a child. She may be making the most superhuman sacrifice ever performed by a human being by giving that child up.

Maybe you should look in the mirror before using such descriptors.

Okay, sorry about the remark. It was a line from the movie "Thief" with James Caan.
I am not sure about your "any number of reasons" for "abandoning" a baby anywhere (you say "giving up") and I am willing to listen to them.

What weighs on my mind is the choiceless life the baby must wake up to later when maybe it struggles to discover it's birth roots and wonders what they could have done so wrong to be abandoned like that? What a guilt trip. Kids who were adopted have a tough enough time with that, imagine being left?

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by SickeningTruths

Better the baby boxes than what they do to unwanted babies (especially baby girls) and India and China!

Unfortunately, as the global economic suituation worsens over the coming 1-2 years, more and more babies will be abandoned, especially in Greece.

Now before anyone passes judgement, which they should'nt......a man's life can change in a split second on the stock market that could and does have devastating affects on his family. Rich one day, lost everything the next.

Don't judge until you've walked in the shoes of the parent/s who find themselves having to give up their child through no fault of their own.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in