Spain revives baby hatches to prevent infanticide

Baby hatches: the turntable returns to the streets

A woman enters a room, places her newborn in a crib, and leaves without explanation. On the other side, an alarm alerts social services. This is not a scene from a nineteenth-century novel: it describes the mechanism behind the debate on "baby hatches," a contemporary version of the turntable used by Spanish convents since the seventeenth century to allow mothers to leave their children anonymously. The discussion, peine in an economics forum, begins with a message lacking adjectives: "Horrible. Terrible. Trivializing." From there, 149 replies range from outright rejection to pragmatic defense.

What are baby hatches and where do they come from?

The historical parallel is the most repeated argument. Hospice turntables allowed leaving a neonate unseen, giving rise to the surname Expósito carried today by thousands of Spaniards. "It's the old foundling home," summarizes one participant. Another points out that previously it was done "in the middle of the night, hidden under a cloak so no one saw you," whereas now the gesture can be public. According to circulating descriptions, the current mechanism consists of a crib connected to an alarm that notifies firefighters or social services to collect the baby within minutes.

The comparison with the past is not innocent. Some argue these hatches are "the modern version of the hospice turntable" and that promoters are, paradoxically, those who oppose abortion. The discussion then shifts to public health: if the goal is to prevent a newborn ending up in a trash container, does that justify a device facilitating abandonment?

The dilemma between bad and worse

The most repeated stance in the thread is not condemnation but resignation. "What option do you give someone who doesn't want their child but doesn't want to kill them either?" asks a participant. "Sometimes you have to choose between bad and worse." This logic permeates much of the discussion: better a hatch than a container, better regulated abandonment than infanticide. A veteran forum member recalls a case of an acquaintance, born to an unmarried mother when that was a social burden, who said: "For my mother, it would have been better to have aborted me." The harsh testimony illustrates that the alternative to abandonment is not always a better life.

Against this trend, another part of the debate notes that the existence of these hatches normalizes what should be exceptional. "Promoting this should be incivil," says the opening message. It adds a doubt hovering over the conversation: "We don't even know for sure if they will hand the babies over to authorities."

Abortion as a term of comparison

Much of the exchange drifts toward abortion. One participant argues that "ultimately, the woman who aborts is more honest than the one who abandons and the State that picks it up," while another responds harshly: "No, she is a cold-blooded killer." The discussion intensifies when responsibility is introduced: "She gets rid of a fetus; the rest tortures children," replicates the first. No consensus is reached, but a clear idea remains: for some, the hatch evades responsibility; for others, it is the last safety net before infanticide.

Economic background also appears. Some claim "having children and letting others support them is not very ethical," while others respond that mothers rarely want to give up their children, "not even those living in misery in underdeveloped countries." The discussion intersects with adoption debates: adoptees are mentioned as having "about 10 times higher probability of suffering emotional and/or psychological problems" in adolescence, an unsourced claim illustrating the conversation's tone.

Historical evolution: from shame to selfie

One highly valued message introduces a temporal nuance: "The DIFFERENCE is that in the seventeenth century it was a source of shame... Now, wait until the empowered women of Instagram take selfies while depositing the baby." The phrase, laden with irony, summarizes a recurring concern: that ease of action trivializes abandonment. Another participant frames it in a broader historical cycle: "Infanticide prevention was sought, a common practice. What changed is that this practice disappeared as societies became prosperous and enlightened." The conclusion drawn is pessimistic: "If they return, it is because we have ceased to be prosperous and enlightened."

The discussion also touches on political current events, mentioning cases of minors under guardianship and social service management in different regions. There are no concrete data, but widespread distrust towards the protection system's functioning exists.

What happens to abandoned babies in Spain?

Beyond the sarracena debate, the thread drops practical data. These hatches are installed in fire stations and similar locations, and a registry of abandoned children exists. It is noted that until the year 2000, hospitals in Spain attended pregnant women who would otherwise have aborted, providing healthcare without questions and handing the child over to adoption agencies. This datum, provided by a nurse according to collected testimonies, cannot be verified with available information but adds context.

The thread closes with a reflection on responsibility: "I have never aborted, but if I had needed to, I would have; it is called responsibility. Leaving a newborn at society's mercy is insane." The phrase, satisfying no one, leaves the debate exactly where it started: between pavor and resignation.