There is a lot of talking at cross purposes here.

Are there children in society that would have been better adopted out than remain with their parents? The answer is clearly YES

Are there children who were forcibly adopted out without consent of their mother? Again a clear YES

Would any of these children of forced adoptions been better or worse off? NOT KNOWN. It is not something that can possibly be measured.

Does apologising for past practices and forced adoptions in any way diminish the advantages of Adoption for many children? NO

These are all different issues.

One woman who was interviewed said her own mother was prepared to support her and help raise the baby but they never had the chance as her baby was forcibly removed. This was despite a supporting family and caring parents. It is urban legend that paints single mothers (mainly mothers) as destitute and out on the streets because it suits some past remnant of what it means to be a family.

BRENDAN O'REILLY,

YOUR IGNORANCE IS BREATHTAKING,YOU LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OWN VOICE.

WE MOTHERS OF SUCH PROFOUND LOSS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF CLOWNS LIKE YOU

BLEATING YOUR ...UNTRUTHS.....THATS WHAT THEY ARE.

YOU TITLE YOURSELF AS AN AUTHOR....YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE PROFESSION.YOU BY THIS ARTICLE SHOW YOUR RESEARCH IS ALMOST NILL AND VOID.

YOUR RANTS ABOUT US UNMARRIED MOTHERS YOU HAVE PICKED UP ALONG THE WAY. THAT SHOWS, WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH??

IF YOU HAD AN OUNCE OF GREY MATTER AND COMMON DECENCY YOU WOULD APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY TO ALL YOU HAVE DEEPLY INSULTED.

ONE THING THAT SET'S US APART...WE BLOODY LIVED THIS HOLACAUST.

AND CLOWNS LIKE YOU WILL DEMEAN US NO MORE.

I SUGGEST YOU TAKE AROUND TWO YEARS TO RESEARCH THE TRUTH, STARTING WITH THE BABY SCOOP ERA RESEARCH INITIATIVE KAREN WILSON-BUTERBAUGH
I BELEIVE TO BE A WORLD LEADER IN THIS FIELD< READ HER RESEARCH< YOU WILL END UP WITH MUD ON YOUR FACE AND YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS. WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF CLOWNS LIKE YOU, OUR KID GLOVES ARE OF NOW. I WONDER HOW YOU WOULD FAIRED IF YOU HAD SAID THAT ON 21st TO THE AUDIENCE GATHERED TO HEAR THE APOLOGY...YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG DRAWN AN QUARTERED.

I AM A MOTHER-OF-LOSS TO ADOPTION< A VERY IRRATE MOTHER AT THAT< READING YOUR ARTICLE DISGUSTS ME. I HAVE THE HALLMARKS OF 46 YEARS LIVING WITH THIS BOTTOMLESS ABYSS OF SORROW...COWARDS LIKE YOU WOULD NOT SURVIVE WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO ENDURE THESE YEARS

Rhrosty - if you're an adoptee and that's your experience I'm sorry for you. Not because you think you were used as slave labour - almost every child of the era was expected to pull their weight, literally. Especially if you were on the land.

What I'm sorry about is you obviously felt no love in your situation - only harsh treatment. Your story isn't confined to unfortunate 'bastards' as you'd have been labelled then but also step-children and a good many biological children.

TODAY the only difference is few adoptees since the 60s would report a similar experience. That's because they are proportionally fewer and adopting parents were motivated by desire to nurture a child. Economic value of 1st world children is long reversed - an expense to be endured until adulthood not a work unit able to utilised after 5 or 6 years. Would-be adopting parents have also been thoroughly screened by child welfare since at least the 50s

Adoptees I know are predominately from late 40s through to mid 60s. Some are part of my family, others people with whom I went to school, worked, played and formed friendships. Most were happy well adjusted people who'd enjoyed childhoods typical of the day - Mum, who was usually a home maker, Dad who brought home the bacon and usually at least one sibling, also adopted. Undoubtedly there are people for whom this arrangement didn't work but compare the proportion of unhappy abused adoptees to the unhappy abused children of biological parents and there's NO CONTEST.

What I'm pointing out is that TODAY the abused, neglected, disadvantaged child - and the number increases steadily because of social (acceptance, illegitamacy not childs fault) and economic (generous welfare) changes in the past 4 - 5 decades is virtually ALWAYS going to be in custody of biological parent/s.

If you accept some biological parents should have been 'de-sexed' at puberty and that all kids deserve love and basic needs, adoption in the 21st century seems a pretty attractive proposition.

Dane, besides demanding an apology from Julia Gillard for her lies and ineptitude, we are entitled to an apology from all the voters that voted for her party. Furthermore, the independents that sided with her to form a government, should apologise unreservedly for their disservice to the nation.

Marah66 - I'm sorry for your pain. However the RANT is yours. Brendan O'Reilly writes with balance and understanding of the times during which these things sadly happened.

He does not condemn or demean - in fact he voices sympathy for hurt caused by the practices of that era. DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE?

What he does is question the NUMBER of 'forced' adoptions, a very legitimate query. I very much do myself.

Like or not Marah66, if you were a single pregnant woman in the 50s or 60s your family would not have been rushing to congratulate you. Instead they'd have wanted a wedding PRONTO! Failing that - what to do about this shameful catastrophic event? This would have been doubly so if you were of very tender years - early to mid teens.

In most cases of 'coercion' greatest pressure would have come from your FAMILY! If it were not so - why did so many young women end up in so-called "Homes" where entire purpose was to shelter her and her family from prying eyes and tattling tongues of friends, neighbors and society generally AND for immediate adoption of the child? This is where 'forced' adoptions took place. However the majority of "inmates" (who I believe were often treated badly) voluntarily relinquished their babies.

If you had the support of your family the likely outcome was to conceal the pregnancy - sometimes even to the point of relocation and afterwards passing off the child as the grandmothers - NOT the mother 'flaunting' her condition then expecting acceptance after the birth. Like it or not, right or wrong, THAT was REALITY then.

Sympathy to young mothers who were torn from their infants - even if in truth many were too young, unsupported and impoverished to realistically keep their baby. Also for those who signed papers with great sadness believing they were giving their child a better chance in life.

I sincerely hope all birth parents - including fathers and adoptees who wish it are able to reunite. Mostly brings peace of mind and reassurance in my experience.

This is in reply to Mr O"Reilly.The political shenanigans certainly overshadowed the Forced Adoption Apology.I have a feeling that was by design rather than accident.However I would like to take the opportunity to reply to your rather misguided opinion on whether the Apology was indeed based upon half truths.

I believe that prior to the National Apology all the States had apologized for their part in such dastardly deeds......in fact I believe the Northern Territory was the only " state " yet to apologize....and it will do so in the coming week..as it should.

The Catholic Church, The Anglican Church and the Uniting Church have all apologized...as has the Benevolent Society.I believe the St Vincent de Paul Society is playing hardball.

"Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography "....unfortunately these are not presumed historical facts...they are facts that are well documented and have been researched by a Committee of 11 employed to do so by the Australian Attorney-General. These include Professor Nahum Mushin, Senator Rachel Siewert, Senator Claire Moore,Senator Sue Boyce, Mr Graham Perrett MP among others. I am sure they looked over many many documents and heard many many harrowing stories. There is no implied criticism, the criticism is real.....

part one