60-70 years ago churches (thankfully) aided women through unwanted pregnancies. Now, by today's norms where government has become responsible for everything, including funding breeding by parents who cannot afford the upkeep of themselves let alone offspring, we've apologized for this.

We even apologized to the fathers of fatherless children, who'll no doubt seek compensation for their loss and suffering.

We'd probably be apologizing to those same kids (now adults)for leaving them in the situation they'd have found themselves in if they hadn't been adopted out to families who could fully provide for them.

This may put me to the right of Ghengis, but hasn't the pendulum swung too far? I've got enough kids of my own to support without having to fork out for a generation bred by those who cannot afford their responsibility and don't even try.

Self-sufficiency is a very old-fashioned idea, no more obvious than in those going onto Newstart after 8 years on parenting payments, railing indignantly against the loss of a lifestyle unencumbered by now having to work to earn the shortfall in changing allowances.

It would be a great world where we could all breed and not have to worry about affording our created responsibilities. It's a world apologies like today's seem to pretend we live in now, and lived in back then.

Luciferase "<60-70 years ago churches (thankfully) aided women through unwanted pregnancies".

Yeah right!
"Aided" is definitely not the right word to use here Luciferase.
Have you ever listened to any of the stories these 'aided' women and children have to tell at all?
After the fathers of these children had their fun and ran a mile after their lover became pregnant, or were never told of the pregnancy in the first place, these pregnant women were forced from their homes and 'jailed' in Church run institutions until they gave birth.

In most cases the newborns were illegally forced to be adopted out, against their mother's (and some fathers too) wills.

Many of these children grew up feeling abandoned by their real parents, suffering mental health issues and ongoing trauma all their lives.

Gee, aren't those people lucky to have been 'aided' by the churches, for their vile 'sins' of fornication...

Thankfully drugged women took the child by force thankfully!
Gave them to good Christian folk? and never let greiveing mums see them again.
My friend hight the other wrongs by all means I will support what you say about some, dads unable to see kids.
But know you do little good ignoring the dreadful things done by Churchs and hospitals welfare and governments who stole generations of children from mums arms

<Gee, aren't those people lucky to have been 'aided' by the churches, for their vile 'sins' of fornication...>

It had nothing to do with that. Which is rather obvious given the secular State's abysmal record in it and its (the State's) the gut-wrenchingly awful treatment of Wards of the State.

You really truly need to read the accounts of those affected. The ruthless secrecy implemented by the State (and I refer to all levels of government) was an obscenity. Many records were deliberately changed to make follow-up impossible and others were destroyed. As well, the numbers are gross under-estimates.

At foot of it were the economic and other social conditions at the time, and the lack of support from the State. That is how the practices came to be and once established the bureaucratic apparatus and policy kept grinding on. It isn't the only area where government exceeds its legitimate powers and role. It is yet another where such abuses are systemic and the population turns a blind eye.

Susie,
you said,"After the fathers of these children had their fun and ran a mile after their lover became pregnant, or were never told of the pregnancy in the first place.........."

You again take the feminist line and imply only the male enjoys sex. My experience is that females enjoy sex as well, in fact it now seems that if the male does not hold back untill she orgasms, he is a failure. It takes two to tango, always has and always will.

Many of the girls and other mums who gave up their babies did so because they realised they could not look after them properly. many girls parents forced the girls to bear the baby. Either that or a backyard abortion with the risks that entails.

What does not seem to be acknowledged here is that many of the adopted kids had a good life with loving adoptive parents, I can attest to that.

There are pros and cons in everything.

Back then, grand-parents of fatherless children had most to do with decisions made about their futures. There was a stigma and a financial cost associated with bringing a child into the family.

Blaming churches ignores the fact that they were doing a service for families, and for the children who found loving homes able to adopt them and provide for them.

Today the community takes the adoption role, forking out for anybody who wants to breed without taking financial responsibility, as if it is a right. A large proportion of these offspring will live poor lives on welfare, and most often without a two parent team to support and guide them. IMO they would often be better off, on balance, adopted out to childless couples aching to nuture them and provide for them.

There was no government policy to remove children from mothers at birth, yet it is government that apologizes for failing to counter the social norms of the day. It's too easy to blame governments for everything. It is within their own families that victims should seek apologies.