[UrbanizdSkillz]

Originally Posted by laylo

The plaintiff's role in a matter she is suing someone else about is always vital. Normally when someone fails to perform his or her compenstated duties, he or she pays the customer back. If the customer has only remained in his or her original condition, the provider of the service is not held responsible for the condition.

I've completely missed your point. Would you mind explaining it further, perhaps? If it says what I think it says, then it seems that you're agreeing with the original point that I stated

Originally Posted by laylo

You're mistaken. http://www.safeplacefornewborns.com/statefiles/ga.html

Allow me to correct myself as I am mistaken on the time limit. You may legally leave an infant at a "safe haven" within a week of giving birth. After such time, abandonment becomes punishable by law. So that given, my point still stands.

Originally Posted by laylo

Sure, but you seemed to be implying some kind of increased risk of being placed into an abusive situation with adoption. I'd be much more worried about this particular mother abusing her child than the chance that an adoptive parent might.

Having been raised by a parent who was placed into an abusive home as well as having witnessed the arduous and lengthy process of adoption, I will openly admit that my viewpoint is skewed and heavily biased, as are many of the arguments that have been seen in this thread. But no, there was no implication of increased risk. There was an attempted observation of the fact that adoption isn't always the best solution. Adoption isn't a "catch-all" or an infallible alternative to abortion. I think that is the notion that irritates me most of all, but I digress.