part two...

and then you pull out the old " mores of the time ".....there was no support, money, accommodation etc argument ....which has been well and truly disproved ...the was a widows pension brought in 1942, child endowment in 1941..and many mothers were entitled to these if only they had known about them. Being poor does not make you a bad parent.

An adoption is only made through loss.....the loss of a child or parent....

The deliberate policy of preventing bonding was in fact an illegal act...well known to be illegal but the legalities were ignored.......because they were ignored does not make them less illegal.The mother was in fact the legal guardian of the baby she had born.....and it was illegal to remove that child with out her consent. Babies taken from the delivery room with out their mothers consent is an illegal act.... A mother does not "relinquish" her child unless she is given choices....choices implies at least two options.

part three

I am unsure of why you think adoption was/is such a wonderful thing...or why you think adopted people should think so.....unless you are of the opinion that adopted people should be grateful for being removed from their family of origin, their roots, their cultures and put into a position of " fulfilling " some one else? This is not tough love.....this is abuse.....using some one else to overcome your own shortcomings....

Quote "Though some find it jarring to see "slavery" and "adoption" in the same sentence, the indisputable connection is the contract at the heart of each institution. Both bind individuals to a lifelong covenant between other persons and the state, without ever giving the individual so bound a say in such a contact." ( attributed to Heather Andrea Williams )......

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. Recognizing this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her."

Past Adoption practices and policies deserve the condemnation that has been heaped on them...no one had the right to take my child.....I was not allowed to parent....so how was it a foregone conclusion that I was a lesser parent?

Your paternalistic ideals are outdated.....

Oh dear, The article begins with some questioning of figures and references to the historical beliefs and practices and then deteriorates into heavy reliance on prejudice and an appeal to emotions.
1) It shouldn't matter if there were 150,000 adoptions or 150, many mothers were not given a real choice and this was "legitimised" by government practices and policies. Other countries did not pursue adoption with the same rigour. In some countries mothers were assisted to find work and in some they were forced to keep their children, as if in punishment. Never was there a majority of ex-nuptial children placed for adoption as mothers in working class families were more likely to be supported by their families and they were also more likely to assume that they would be employed. The apology was for government policy following the beliefs that a single mother was not a good mother and not worthy of support. Even when a mother signed a consent form in the legal manner there was little or no choice, particularly if she was without family support. If she had been living in one of the church operated homes she was probably subjected to "counseling"and the more she had, the more likely she was to place her child for adoption.
2) Single mothers are just the same as married mothers. We don't all end up in the gutter abusing our children. With the rise of de facto relationships and the demise of the lifelong marriage there is a blurring of lines. My statistics are out of date but I vividly remember ex-married women far outnumbering single mothers on government payments and remaining out of the workforce for longer. But that is a moot point because all women should have the choice to stay at home with the children if they want to. Our children are pretty much just like every other child as well except they are a bit more likely to be independent.

jenny H,
It's simple not right that children from single parent families do as well or better than those from two parent families. They clearly don't and there are many statistics to support that. And before you tell me your personal story, I'll ask you not to. I'm not interested in personal stories of successful single mothers because they are not representative of the majority.

Jenny H,
I agree with your point that all women should have the choice to stay home with their children if they want to - it's just I don't think I should have to pay for it. If we abolished single mothers' payments and reinstated at-fault divorce (no-fault divorce has really come to mean men's fault) then we wouldn't have so many women initiating divorces and 'moving on' (to the pension in many cases) and causing children to be raised with only one parent. That would actually be in the best interests of the child but again, we know that the best interests of the child really means 'the best interests of the mother's ability to do whatever she wants' in practice.