Adoption is an Alternative Act (Law'd)

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's this all about, Lumine?

[bore]

This seems a fairly straight forward and sensible bill, which I'll support.

[Cassius]

I firmly support the first two provisions of this bill; however, I think that, in the case of the third provision, there should be an option for the mother to have the data destroyed, or, at the very least, made unobtainable, as a kind of opt-out system. Just a thought there.

[Lumine]

This is a bit of an effort to address the abortion issue without going through the usual route and the usual debate to the death. When I was Midwest Governor Cris proposed something very similar before the Althing (it passed, and Cris has to be given all the credit for the idea), and I found it fascinating enough to try to see how this would work on the federal level. I considered using the German system of "baby-hatches" for a time, but since I wasn't fully convinced of the idea I decided to go with this version and put some emphasis on protecting the right of the adopted child to learn about his origin.

I firmly support the first two provisions of this bill; however, I think that, in the case of the third provision, there should be an option for the mother to have the data destroyed, or, at the very least, made unobtainable, as a kind of opt-out system. Just a thought there.

That's an interesting idea, but I do feel one of the most important parts of this bill is precisely allowing the child to obtain the data at some point (I personally wouldn't want to deny him that right). But I am genuinely curious, why do you think the mother should have that option?

[Cassius]

This is a bit of an effort to address the abortion issue without going through the usual route and the usual debate to the death. When I was Midwest Governor Cris proposed something very similar before the Althing (it passed, and Cris has to be given all the credit for the idea), and I found it fascinating enough to try to see how this would work on the federal level. I considered using the German system of "baby-hatches" for a time, but since I wasn't fully convinced of the idea I decided to go with this version and put some emphasis on protecting the right of the adopted child to learn about his origin.

I firmly support the first two provisions of this bill; however, I think that, in the case of the third provision, there should be an option for the mother to have the data destroyed, or, at the very least, made unobtainable, as a kind of opt-out system. Just a thought there.

That's an interesting idea, but I do feel one of the most important parts of this bill is precisely allowing the child to obtain the data at some point (I personally wouldn't want to deny him that right). But I am genuinely curious, why do you think the mother should have that option?

Well, basically, on the one hand, such a situation (the child obtaining the data and proceeding to track down the mother) could be a tad, how shall I put this... awkward. Indeed, one of my very good friends, who was adopted, recently did that, and it proved a bit of a fiasco, the whole meeting up thing. Not only that, but it can also be awkward for the adopting family too (as it was in the above case). Personally, I think that there'll be plenty of mothers who want to move on from whatever had led them to that particular pass in the first place, and the possibility of the child turning up 18 years later, when you might have settled down and started a brand new life, has the potential to be disruptive and possibly painful. I'd have it as an opt out system, but I think the option should be there regardless.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think with the privacy concerns addressed, this would be a fine proposal.

[PPT Spiral]

Cassius is right here. The third provision is my only objection to this bill, which I otherwise fully support. I guess I'll introduce an amendment here to correct that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Lumine, is Spiral's amendment friendly or hostile?

[Lumine]

This is a bit of an effort to address the abortion issue without going through the usual route and the usual debate to the death. When I was Midwest Governor Cris proposed something very similar before the Althing (it passed, and Cris has to be given all the credit for the idea), and I found it fascinating enough to try to see how this would work on the federal level. I considered using the German system of "baby-hatches" for a time, but since I wasn't fully convinced of the idea I decided to go with this version and put some emphasis on protecting the right of the adopted child to learn about his origin.

I firmly support the first two provisions of this bill; however, I think that, in the case of the third provision, there should be an option for the mother to have the data destroyed, or, at the very least, made unobtainable, as a kind of opt-out system. Just a thought there.

That's an interesting idea, but I do feel one of the most important parts of this bill is precisely allowing the child to obtain the data at some point (I personally wouldn't want to deny him that right). But I am genuinely curious, why do you think the mother should have that option?

Well, basically, on the one hand, such a situation (the child obtaining the data and proceeding to track down the mother) could be a tad, how shall I put this... awkward. Indeed, one of my very good friends, who was adopted, recently did that, and it proved a bit of a fiasco, the whole meeting up thing. Not only that, but it can also be awkward for the adopting family too (as it was in the above case). Personally, I think that there'll be plenty of mothers who want to move on from whatever had led them to that particular pass in the first place, and the possibility of the child turning up 18 years later, when you might have settled down and started a brand new life, has the potential to be disruptive and possibly painful. I'd have it as an opt out system, but I think the option should be there regardless.

That I can understand, and I am tempted to name the amendment friendly (I will take a few hours before formally naming it one way or the other), but I guess I am still a bit concerned about denying the child the right to know about his origins regardless of how painful it could be. My doubt here is, why should be judge in favor of the mother instead of the child? Wouldn't it be frustrating for him/her not to have a chance to know?

[Cassius]

This is a bit of an effort to address the abortion issue without going through the usual route and the usual debate to the death. When I was Midwest Governor Cris proposed something very similar before the Althing (it passed, and Cris has to be given all the credit for the idea), and I found it fascinating enough to try to see how this would work on the federal level. I considered using the German system of "baby-hatches" for a time, but since I wasn't fully convinced of the idea I decided to go with this version and put some emphasis on protecting the right of the adopted child to learn about his origin.

I firmly support the first two provisions of this bill; however, I think that, in the case of the third provision, there should be an option for the mother to have the data destroyed, or, at the very least, made unobtainable, as a kind of opt-out system. Just a thought there.

That's an interesting idea, but I do feel one of the most important parts of this bill is precisely allowing the child to obtain the data at some point (I personally wouldn't want to deny him that right). But I am genuinely curious, why do you think the mother should have that option?

Well, basically, on the one hand, such a situation (the child obtaining the data and proceeding to track down the mother) could be a tad, how shall I put this... awkward. Indeed, one of my very good friends, who was adopted, recently did that, and it proved a bit of a fiasco, the whole meeting up thing. Not only that, but it can also be awkward for the adopting family too (as it was in the above case). Personally, I think that there'll be plenty of mothers who want to move on from whatever had led them to that particular pass in the first place, and the possibility of the child turning up 18 years later, when you might have settled down and started a brand new life, has the potential to be disruptive and possibly painful. I'd have it as an opt out system, but I think the option should be there regardless.

That I can understand, and I am tempted to name the amendment friendly (I will take a few hours before formally naming it one way or the other), but I guess I am still a bit concerned about denying the child the right to know about his origins regardless of how painful it could be. My doubt here is, why should be judge in favor of the mother instead of the child? Wouldn't it be frustrating for him/her not to have a chance to know?

It's a difficult situation; however, if one thinks of the many adopted children who have never discovered their true origins, yet have turned out alright as people. Whilst I agree that some might find it frustrating, on the other hand, I think that there is a greater chance of actual hurt being caused by refusing to allow for the option. In the end, either way someone isn't going to be best pleased by this bill; this amendment I think offers the route of least displeasure.

[DemPGH]

Hospitals are not daycare centers aside from the privacy issue.

[bore]

Perhaps in a case with the mother not wanting to reveal herself, the information could be withheld until her death, or the child's 18 birthday, whatever is a longer period of time?

[TNF]

Lumine, is Spiral's amendment friendly or hostile?

[Brewer]

When I was in the Althing, one question was asked of this kind of bill but not answered: how much is it going to cost hospitals to take care of all these babies for four weeks?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

just so people are aware, this also exists:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Infant_Abandonment_Act_%28federal%29

[Lumine]

Well, I think I will agree with Cassius and Spiral here, the amendment is friendly.

just so people are aware, this also exists:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Infant_Abandonment_Act_%28federal%29

That's curious, I couldn't find that one during my research. I might as well turn this into an amendment for the Infant Abandonment Act once the current amendment passes...

When I was in the Althing, one question was asked of this kind of bill but not answered: how much is it going to cost hospitals to take care of all these babies for four weeks?

Oh, yes, I remember that, sadly the GM was not available for such request. I wonder if Napoleon will be up for a cost analysis of this bill?

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the proposed amendment.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted. What are we doing here?

[Lumine]

Well, I'd like to discuss clause 5 while I ask the GM to provide some analysis of the potential cost, since we haven't set a number for the fine. I'm not very knowledgeable of the usual amounts for fines, so any suggestions about that?

[bore]

This wouldn't cost anything if the hand over centre is already covered.

[Lumine]

This wouldn't cost anything if the hand over centre is already covered.

Well, not technically but it still represents an expense (likely a major one), so I guess it is a legitimate concern. On the other hand we don't have a GM anymore, so... It's better to move on with other parts of this, I will offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It combines both acts and introduces a tentative fine, thoughts?

[bore]

The point is this bill would not constitute an increase in spending.

Also, 10 000 dollars is chump change to a hospital.

Finally, I'd like to see the information revealed on the mother's death or after 70 years not destroyed permanently.

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the proposed amendment.

[Cranberry]

First Senate post and this is as good a place as any. Hi guys, I'm the new guy from the Pacific


I guess I generally support this bill. In Austria, there is an institution called the "Babyklappe" (baby hatches), some warm spot under a glas panel in some hospitals where mothers can leave their child anonymously. An alarm then goes off, so the child is sought after, while the mother can get away then before being seen by anyone. This bill would essentially do the same thing, just the anonymity is not given. No one in this honourable body can ever experience what the mothers must feel in that particular moment, when they give up their child. I guess it would be better then if we too would give the mothers that anonymity, so they can at least keep their decency before the worker in the particular institution.
Once this amendment is approved, I'd like to offer an amendment enabling this.

[Dr. Cynic]

First Senate post and this is as good a place as any. Hi guys, I'm the new guy from the Pacific


I guess I generally support this bill. In Austria, there is an institution called the "Babyklappe" (baby hatches), some warm spot under a glas panel in some hospitals where mothers can leave their child anonymously. An alarm then goes off, so the child is sought after, while the mother can get away then before being seen by anyone. This bill would essentially do the same thing, just the anonymity is not given. No one in this honourable body can ever experience what the mothers must feel in that particular moment, when they give up their child. I guess it would be better then if we too would give the mothers that anonymity, so they can at least keep their decency before the worker in the particular institution.
Once this amendment is approved, I'd like to offer an amendment enabling this.

I don't know. I feel like the child should have SOME right to the information somehow. Surely there is a way to protect the privacy and eventually give those children some kind of closure should they desire it.