The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Forced adoptions of 40s and 50s

Forced adoptions of 40s and 50s

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
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.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 21 March 2013 10:22:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 22 March 2013 12:45:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 March 2013 7:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<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.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 22 March 2013 8:57:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 22 March 2013 8:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 22 March 2013 9:03:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether they enjoyed sex more or not Banjo, the men in those days were far more likely not to stand by their pregnant girlfriend than they are today.

Their parents were just as upset about a coming 'bastard' as the girls parents were no doubt.

I agree that pregnant single women in those days had a far worse stigma in society about their 'situation' than they have today.
People like Banjo still have a problem with them today.

Regardless of the so called morals of the wider society back then, the fact remains that the Churches behaviour towards these women and children was cruel, and the Governments of the day did nothing to stop it.

That's why the Government apologised yesterday.
No one is hurt by apologising, and those affected may feel a little better.
Where's the harm in that?
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 22 March 2013 9:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thousands of
unwed mothers were forced by government policies
and practices to give up their babies for adoption
over several decades. That forced the separation of
mothers and their babies - which created a lifelong
legacy of pain and suffering. Many people heard the
apology by the PM and responded with a standing
ovation. It's a shame that this wasn't given enough
coverage in the media yesterday. It deserved it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/21/julia-gillard-apologises-forced-adoptions
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 22 March 2013 9:56:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Suse, "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.", what a load of tripe. I don't know what sort of people you moved with, but I've never seen it.

Yes Banjo is right, but in fact doesn't go far enough. Looking back I can see that my first encounters were engineered by the ladies involved. This was almost the norm, as most boys I knew were too slow to make the running. So many of the young blokes I knew fell in love with, & married the first girl who got their gear off for them,--nicely.

I can remember many a teenage pair running around trying to raise the money for a termination, where that was HER desire, but also many marriages, & boys supporting girls thrown out of home.

I had heard of these church homes, but the numbers involved were very small in the scheme of things. No one I even knew of used one.

I can't think of a single instance where those in a Shotgun marriage stayed together, even where the couple were much in love at the time, so adoption was probably as better solution for mother & baby. The church homes were the only solution for those without any support, & should not be maligned for helping those in need. Their behaviour was a product of the times.

This is all a bit womens lib really. These women with now empty lives are complaining about what was a godsend at the time, for them & their offspring.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 22 March 2013 10:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can find no evidence that govts "forced" adoptions. They simply did not provide the free ride for irresponsible breeding we give today.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 22 March 2013 11:34:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie,
You said,"Whether they enjoyed sex more or not Banjo, the men in those days were far more likely not to stand by their pregnant girlfriend than they are today".

I certainly dispute that statement. 50-60 years ago, most blokes that 'got a girl into trouble' married the girl and provided a stable life for her and his family. Just do some family history and go back a generation or three. Compare the wedding date to the birthdate of the first born and in many families you will find that the first born was 'premature', sometimes by many months. Don't forget also that a few girls got pregnant so as to snare the bloke she wanted, that was not unknown. Common knowledge for family historians.

Of course feminists may prefer an earlier time, when domestic servitude and strawplaiters were about the only female occupations. At that time a pregnant girl was just turned out and likely the baby died and she ended up a prostitute to earn a living.

The adoptive system was an improvement.

Both genders have always been attracted to each other, nothing has changed there. What has changed is reliable methods of contraception, so these days there is no need for unwanted pregnancies, there is even the morning after pill. I do not mind people having sex, its enjoyable, but for unpartnered women to have multiple babies with the expectation of the state to provide for them is immoral. I am told that a 14 yo girl can get the pill without her parents knowledge.

I am told there are many couples who desperately want children but are unable to, that is a pity. It all seems cockeyed somehow.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 22 March 2013 11:52:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can anyone imagine what it would have cost to support all those unplanned kids and unwed mothers in the days before the contraceptive pill and abortion on demand?
The government in the 1940's and 50's could not have afforded to support these kids, just as it couldn't afford to offer any long term support to migrants and postwar refugees. Everyone knows that 30% of the government expenditure goes on social welfare and everyone knows it's not sustainable, they knew it in the 1940's and they knew it now, you can't spend more than you can pay for, that's basic maths.

I understand this is an emotional debate, I get it, a woman who is genuinely unfit for parenthood in their youth can change and mature into a wholly decent and responsible person, but at some point the nuns and the social services had to make a judgement. The potential damage to the child in their first years would have had to have been taken into account, you can't really "un screw up" a person in adulthood, or whenever you as a parent develop the insight that is lacking in youth.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 22 March 2013 12:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a submission to a 1993 judicial review of past adoption practices, an organisation that worked with many relinquishing mothers, concluded that "many, possibly a majority of the birth mothers seen at the centre, described the adoption as having been in the child's best interests in view of their own youth, lack of family support, inadequate finances and unreadiness for parenthood".

It was a very different world back then. Single parenthood was not really a viable option. I well recall the horror stories of deprivation that circulated when Whitlam first talked about providing state assistance for those few who were single parents. It was usual and accepted that unwed and unattached young girls could not and would not adequately look after themselves or their new offspring. Additionally, back then they knew what we now try to forget...that a child raised in a household with both a father and mother, on average, does much better then one raised with just one parent.

Now fast-forward 20 or 40yrs and we find the then scared and bewildered girl is now a regretful woman. Maybe she has been re-united with the adopted child. Now she needs to justify in her own mind why she did what she now regrets. Solution...I was forced. I so desperately wanted to keep the child but the state/the church/the grandparents/the society conspired to take the child from me. And even then they had to trick me, drug me to drag the child from my loving arms. A perfectly reasonable rationalisation. But, I suspect, rarely the truth.

But, as with the stolen generation, the truth isn't the issue. Much easier to just accept their rationalisations as true, apologise on behalf of unnamed perpetrators and get the warm inner glow.

Apologies on behalf of long gone others is the easiest thing in the world. Apologise for the stolen kids. Apologise for slavery. Apologise for taking orphans. I'm just waiting for the Germans to apologise for deceiving Varus.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 22 March 2013 1:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
L you will not see, the truth or hear it while your head is in the sand read the reports of some victims.
See why we, all too late said sorry.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 March 2013 2:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

I can't understand why you state that you can find no
evidence when all you have to do is Google the subject.
There's heaps of websites ranging from the BBC, to CNN,
to The Guardian, and heaps more. Perhaps the following
may help:

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-pm-apologizes-forced-adoptions-005244507.html
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 22 March 2013 3:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree with Luciferase, Banjo, Jay and mhaze, there is a lot of ill-conceived rationalisation going on, pointing the blame solely on various institutions, and the 'state', when the reality is that times were different then, whether we like it or not.

Suse, you are sadly misinformed, and your bias is just so clear.

As with the stolen generations, it was a sad thing that conditions back then were simply not conducive to providing welfare willy-nilly, and society relied on children being raised by able couples.

To look at some of today's 'camps' one has to wonder if many of those 'stolen' back whenever were not actually 'saved' from an otherwise outrageously lousy existence? How much has changed - except that now we dare not attempt to 'save' anyone. Pendulum.

It is wrong to take history out of context, whether it gives you a warm 'glow' to do so, or not.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 22 March 2013 6:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They all report on what the apology was about, Lexi, but there is precious little on what legislation or formal policies were followed other than many fatherless children born to young women were routinely adopted (60% at its height before availability of welfare, oral contraceptives and legalized abortion) while fewer were kept within the women's families. Where is a consistent baby theft policy to be found in this fact?

The Senate committee report found that the federal government had contributed to forced adoption by failing to provide unwed mothers with full welfare benefits to which a widow or deserted wife would have been entitled until 1973. The differentiation was due to a federal judgement about irresponsible breeding that was jettisoned in 1973 and which we've been paying for financially and in societal ways ever since, IMO.

We have arrived at what I believe to be a ridiculous situation where a women can simply decide to be a mother and she and her offspring will be carried financially by the community as if she were doing it a service. Furthermore, following the apology, we are now morally if not legally bound to compensate thousands for the actions of their own families in giving them up for adoption rather than the government fostered baby theft now painted.

Those good people who thought their role was doing right have now been consigned to the status of concentration camp guards.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 22 March 2013 6:42:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices,

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On/Commonwealth_contribution_to_former_forced_adoption_policies_and_practices

"We now can say it was a horror of our history and not pretend it didn't happen..." (from a speech in reply)

To add, would it be any less a horror where parents were forced by circumstance to give up their child for adoption? That is the problem where parents are not informed, counselled and supported to give a home to their child.

We should also remember that these practices continued right up into the Eighties. The many thousands of mothers, fathers and children affected are still alive. Just think about that for a minute or so. It is not ancient history at all.

The supporters of the big State and centralisation, of government continually interfering in the private lives of citizens really need to sit up and listen to the experiences of these parents and to the stories of previous Wards of the State.

To imagine that it couldn't happen again, that government wouldn't be secretive and abuse its control over citizens is to live in a fools' paradise. The public regularly turns a blind eye to abuses of privacy and to strong arm tactics directed at individuals by government. As we discuss forced adoption, government is busily trying to limit free speech and there are groups who support them in that, expecting secondary gain from denial of free speech and the self-censorship that inevitably follows.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 22 March 2013 9:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I very much doubt that the Government would issue an apology to adopted children and their birth mothers who were forced apart at unmarried mother's 'homes' , if there wasn't plenty of evidence to prove it happened.

Why would they bother?
(Except ,of course, if all the feminists in Canberra orchestrated it all!)

Lexi, there is no use pointing out any actual facts about forced adoption practices to a bunch of people who disagree with anything that may even vaguely be seen as women's rights.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 22 March 2013 11:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, while some of these kids did have a good life with loving parents do you understand what your first post here did?
Mate it in saying there are two sides took one, strongly.
You leaped over a mountain of pain, and wrong, seem unable to see those drugged mums , or the horror of those stolen Baby's.
Ever thought of going in to politics?
Labor right seems an opertunity!
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 March 2013 6:18:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

Say what?! This has nothing to do with feminism.

As a matter of fact over all of the decades of feminism, the feminists did not bother with this up at all, in spite of it being mentioned in the media many times over the years (sim. to State Wards).

That is the problem. People prefer not to think about it, to turn off to difficult issues that do not affect them personally.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 23 March 2013 6:35:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

"Why would they bother?". (to apologise).

Why wouldn't they. Absolutely no downside for the pollies. Here you got a bunch of clearly traumatic people who want to blame others for their rejects. The 'others' aren't named and aren't fighting back. So you can apologise on behalf of unnamed and unidentified perpetrators, get the warm inner glow, get the kudos from the self-identified victims, share their tears etc etc. What pollie wouldn't want that? So all sides sign up to try to show their compassion.

All winners, no losers. Win/Win for Gillard etc. Well one loser - the taxpayer - but they don't matter.

I'll believe these horror stories when I start seeing nurses, doctors, mid-wives from that era coming forth, admitting to ripping kids out of the loving arms of drugged girls at the behest of church and state. Until then, in my mind, its just regretful women wanting to absolve themselves of decisions they made in their youth.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 March 2013 9:48:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

Your last statement reminds me of many episodes
in history that some people simply deny or fail to
understand - such as indigenous-settler relations
in this country.

However it is now possible to explore the past by
means of reports, articles, oral histories and so on.
Many voices are filling out the space once claimed as
the "Great Australian Silence."

But knowing brings burdens which can only be shirked by
those living in ignorance. With knowledge the question
is no longer what we know but what we are now to do,
and that's a much harder matter to deal with. The
national apology was a step in the right direction.
If you really want to get to the truth - go to your
national library and you'll be given as much information
as you need - to get the bigger picture.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 March 2013 10:02:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, Lexi, Suseonline,

Yes, push came to shove in cases and there was pain but behind it all was the decision taken by families, not a baby stealing authoritarian government.

If the federal government wants to apologise for anything, as representative of the majority of the population, it might be for failing to provide unwed mothers with the same welfare benefits to which widows or deserted wives were entitled.

I am in the (extreme?) minority of the population who think the federal government had it right on this back then. Since 1973 we have allowed women who choose it to be state funded mothers.

That Australian families already under strain must pay taxes to support these irresponsible breeders is one thing I strongly object to. However and moreover, I believe that societal ill has resulted from the generally poorer parenting and socio-economic situation the children are strongly affected by. They are raised in a culture of government succor in which many remain trapped. They are deprived of what a good adoptive home could provide but, yes, they have their mothers'love.

Yes we all know someone from this background for whom all the above is untrue and they had a poor but loving childhood and are now model citizens. However, I'd contend this most often not how it plays out and that adoption into a more financially secure, loving, nurturing home would be better.

Call me old-fashioned, call me an extremist, call me what you like. More people must live by their decisions and expect a hand-up rather than a hand-out from the rest of us. This should be the culture all of our children are raised into.

Adoption, where it now occurs, should be run in an open way so that children should have access to contact with their biological parents. This I do believe was a failing of the past.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 23 March 2013 10:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. In my previous post I wrote "reject" when I meant "regret".

2. Lexi,

Its really easy and very sloppy thinking to simply assert that if only others read more widely they'd agree with your thinking. Tell me where, specifically, I can read evidence, eye-witness, unemotional, non self-serving evidence, that these practices took place.

In this regard, I'll refer you to the stolen generation issue. Here again, we heard all sorts of harrowing stories from the self-styled victims. But once it got into the courts where real evidence, not tears, was required and weighed, it, on every occasion, failed.

3. Luciferase,
"I am in the (extreme?) minority of the population who think the federal government had it right on this back then. Since 1973 we have allowed women who choose it to be state funded mothers."

I don't think you're in an extreme minority. Not even sure you're in a minority. The decision back then to make the state a surrogate father was, in retrospect, a disaster for the state and for the kids. No one, or few, saw it at the time, so I don't blame those who made the decision. But we have no excuses for not learning from the experience.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 March 2013 10:32:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze, I hope you are including the fathers in the nasty comment you made about 'breeders'? It takes 2 people to make a baby, and if both are willing to have unprotected sex, then both should be willing to take care of the baby.

We all know there are people out there who make mistakes, and some who really want a baby, no matter what. So should we penalize the baby and leave it to be raised in poverty if the parents aren't willing or able to financially provide for it
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 23 March 2013 11:26:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse,
I'm opposed to the government doling out "rights" to anyone.
Your definition of women's "rights" in this context is really describing a cost that some women impose upon the rest of us, where do you think the money comes from?
Welfare and health are already over 50% of government expenditure, 50 cents of every dollar we remit to Canberra goes to help unproductive or sick people, once you factor in the added pressure on prisons and policing attributable to women's "rights" the picture is grim.
Women's "rights" cost money, the money has to be taxed from productive people or borrowed and paid back with interest, it doesn't come out of thin air.
You'll notice women only started asserting their "rights" when the coast was clear and it wasn't going to cost them anything, whereas men did, and in some countries still do pay for their "rights" via military or civil service, including going to war.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 23 March 2013 11:38:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi my sweet, what are we to do about it?

If giving these ladies money will overcome their pain we have a problem. The problem is not in their treatment in the past, but in that we have yet another bunch who have found/manufactured a reason to hold their hand out.

If it won't cure their pain, there is no point giving it to them, & why would money cure pain?

Suse one of the problems was of course, many of the ladies did not know who had got them pregnant. As others have said, most in the situation had shot gun marriages, quick time, when the father was known.

In those days before DNA testing a multi partnered lady could not point the finger at anyone in particular. Many tried, only to be thrown out of court. These ladies should be thanking the organisations who came to their aid, not denigrating them.

I do believe the policy was actually to prevent the baby being raised in poverty. There was a selection process to be gone through for intending adopters, & serious attempts were made to select good parents for the kids. Very few would not have been better parents than the birth mother in her situation.

We would be wise to reintroduce the same system, with the only proviso that the grand parents be given first option.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 23 March 2013 11:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

I have no wish to convert you to "my way of thinking."
On the contrary - the reason I am referring you to
do your research (on any issue) is that you may then
obtain a more accurate picture of what occurred.

Many generations of Australians, grew up with a
distorted and idelaised version of the past and it is
now possible to explore the past by means of a large
number of books, articles, films, novels, songs, and
paintings. Many things have changed. Much has been
achieved. Tolerance and understanding have broadened
out. Bigotry is in retreat.

Sure parts of our history is
often distressing, but it does enable us to know and
understand.

My suggestion to you to do further research
on the issue was in response to the fact that you had
stated that you hadn't found information to alter your
point of view. I merely suggested that you hadn't looked
very far - because it is available at any library of
your choice. Of course, you have to be willing to seek
it. If you're reluctant to modify your judgement and
learn the facts - then no one can help you. It's your
choice.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 March 2013 12:00:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

You seem to be under the impression that "these
ladies," will be given money hand over fist.
The PM has committted $5 million to "support
services for affected families" and to help
biological families re-unite.

I don't see why you have a problem with this.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 March 2013 12:24:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline wrote "Mhaze, I hope you are including the fathers in the nasty comment you made about 'breeders'?"

Actually I've never made any comment about 'breeders'. Falsely accused again!! Another one of those burdens all men must bare.(grin).

But if I did make a comment I could assure you it wouldn't be nasty. Like every comment I make on every topic, anywhere, it would be fair, unbiased, immaculately researched and unassailable. Just saying.

Lexi,

So from your answer we can safely assume that you actually haven't got the faintest idea if or where there might be evidence that the apology was justified. You just assume its 'out there' somewhere and if someone (not you obviously) looked hard enough they'd find the evidence that you so so hope exists.

Here's a thought, Lexi. Maybe you haven't seen it cos it ain't there
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 23 March 2013 12:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

Now you're simply stirring.

However, I shall repeat what I've stated previously.
Start with the government report on forced
adoptions - available through your regional
or state library. Any librarian can help
you with any further information. The information
is there. However you seem reluctant to find it.
And, that's not something I can do anything about.
As I said - it is now up to you. And I shall leave
you to it.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 March 2013 1:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the support was good or even moderately satisfactory in the present why are there so many abortions?

I am not provoking a discussion of abortion which is a right anyhow, but simply asking the question. Because the number of children up for adoption has reduced enormously since. That is not to bring on a debate about making women continue pregnancies to populate Australia against their will and best interests.

Although I would like to think I was generally responsible and caring and discussed the pregnancy risk with partners, I do not know how many conceptions if any I might have had a role in. No form of contraception or even the apparent overkill of the Pill combined with a condom is 100% effective. There are very good reasons for that. But we were young too and risk was always increased by our optimism, enthusiasm and joie de vivre. We were bullet proof and accident proof.

I know that many pregnancies were concealed and abortions were sought, but not always granted. Regretfully many women did shoulder the responsibility alone. Not necessarily because the father was absent, but what could be the purpose of informing him when he couldn't afford the responsibility either?

It is not simple. Many good people who intended otherwise and usually took appropriate steps for prevention got caught by an unplanned pregnancy. They still do and sometimes might take what appears to be the only sure way out. Are there later regrets in some cases? Another thing no-one wants to hear about.

There are no easy solutions. However as a community we need to reach out to people in desperate need and support them. A mistake should not destroy happiness or a future. Abortion has to be available, but not as the only viable alternative. There needs to be better counselling and support too.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 23 March 2013 1:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
In my first post i disagreed with Susie, who implied that males were to blame soley. I pointed out that females have sex drive as well.

To date all the publicity and articles have been about the mothers who gave up their babies for adoption and scant recognition of the better life offered to the adoptees and the contribution of the adoptive parents.

Frankly I think the adoptive era should be acknowledged but not apologised for, because it was a vast improvement on the 'do nothing' era it replaced. At least the mothers were given medical care and the babies given the chance of a good stable envoroment, instead of a likely life of poverty. Just read about the era beforehand with the 'work houses'. Thousands of immigrants were shipped to Aus because England found the cost of providing for the poor (such as it was) too high to bear.

Before reliable contraception, the adoptive era was better for both the child and the mother and this is not recognised. It is all very weel to say the people wh ran the homes for unwed mothers were uncaring and callous, but how could one stay in that job if one did not develope a tough exterior. I know of one couple when picking up their adoptive baby had to wait a little longer 'because the staff were wiping off the lipstick'. Now days the system seems to be keep the baby with the natural mother irrespective of the circumstances or risk to the child. One frequently reads where DOCS is critisised for intervening too late and foster mums have posted here saying the present system has many flaws.

I doubt if there will ever be a perfect system but I think the critisism of government is unwarranted as they did not pass laws to remove babies from all single mothers.

Today there is a lot of prospective adoptive parents, but kids are left with natural parents even in the most questionable of circumstances.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 23 March 2013 1:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just can not ignore it.
So many refusing to see the way it true\ly was in those days.
The true theft of children, the crimes of Churches.
I in some posts, see a barely hidden anti woman theme
Time has us much better, than then, but what harm tell me, did saying sorry do?
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 March 2013 2:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You left out the "crimes" of the grand-parents of the adopted, Belly, the real determinants of their future.

Lexi, the evidence is that separations could be very hard given that the wishes of mothers' parents were placed above their own in instances, and push could come to shove. There was no government policy/legislation concerning forced adoption of babies born to unwed mothers. If there was there would have been more than twice the number of pre-1973 adoptees being apologized to this week.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 23 March 2013 3:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

May I politely suggest to you that you Google:

forcedadoptionsapology@ag.gov.au.

Or call: 02 6141 3030

And ask for a copy of:

" The impact of past adoption practices -
Summary of key issues from Australian Research."

The Senate Committee Report which began in 2010
investigated the impacts of the now discredited policies.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 March 2013 5:07:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry mhaze for accusing you of using the word ' breeders', when in actual fact it was the delightful Lucerifase who wrote that sentence. ( well the names are similar:)

Lexi is correct in saying that there is plenty of evidence that adoption practices were forced at times up until the 70's here in Australia.

I grew up being educated by nuns for all my school life.
I remember in high school, during lectures on 'family planning', we were told that it was a terrible sin to haves premarital sex or baby.
Two nuns told us it was 'gods will' that these sinful women were never to see their baby's faces, and that the bible apparently said somewhere that baby's of sinners were to be 'given' to better 'god-fearing parents'!

Just google "Australian Magdalene Laundry" to read some truly awful stories re "Brainwashing and depersonalization to comply with the 'rules'..."

This involved the police coming around to a pregnant 17 year old woman's home in the middle of the night and taking her to jail before sending her to work for no pay at a laundry run by nuns until her baby was born....and taken away.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 23 March 2013 6:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Higgins (2010) noted that issues relating to consent and coercion (including illegal and/or discriminatory actions) point to some of the reasons why trauma may be evident. These issues include:

- administration of high levels of drugs to the mother in the perinatal period (including pain relief medication, sedatives and a hormone that suppresses lactation) that may have affected their capacity to consent;
- not allowing the mother to see the baby (such as active shielding with a sheet or other physical barrier during birth, or removing the baby or the mother from the ward immediately after birth);
- withholding information about the baby (e.g., gender, health information, or even whether the baby was a live birth);
- lying that the baby had died;
- not allowing the mother to hold or feed the baby;
- discouraging the mother from naming the baby;
- discouraging the mother from naming the father;
- bullying behaviour by consent-takers (seen as the "bastions of morality" who are protecting "good families");
- failing to advise the mother of her right to rescind the decision to relinquish, and the effective procedures to do so;
- failing to correctly obtain consent from the mother (e.g., the mother being too young to give consent; interactions with other issues raised above that prevent informed consent; consent being given while under the influence of drugs; mother not being informed of her rights, etc.);
- treating the mothers differently from married women (e.g., social workers and medical/nursing staff making assumptions that all unwed, pregnant mothers' babies would be adopted);
- being abandoned by their own mothers/families;
- the closed nature of past adoption practices (secrecy, and the "clean break" theory);
- the assumption of a married couple's entitlement to a child (adoption was a mechanism for dealing with infertility), with the joint "problem" of illegitimacy and infertility); and
- conducting experiments on newborn babies with drugs, with the children dying or being adopted without any follow-up of these experiments>

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport21/rr21c.html
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 23 March 2013 7:37:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At last facts sneak in to the thread.
The truth will out.
Why is it that side issues always come in to divert a thread.
It maybe we have seen issues some have with some woman come out here.
I have always said of those days , stolen generation was wrong.
And it was not just focused on the crime against the Children of our first Australians.
Sorry, no doubt most Churches played a roll.
But from personal experience, the Catholic Church, [I am not a Catholic] had a hand bigger than most in it.
My family was under threat of being taken away, because the Catholic Matron in our then home town was linked to Child welfare, professionals.
We are better for having inquired in to and said sorry for some dreadful acts from a dreadful era.
As a post script that Matron had to watch as all of her three Children had prison sentences handed down, an interesting result, she saw two other family's Children taken away, after reporting imagined things.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 March 2013 6:43:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Senate Committee Report which began in 2010
investigated the impacts of the now discredited policies."

The discredited policies you refer to, Lexi, were in relation to "closed adoption" where "an adopted child's original birth certificate was sealed forever and an amended birth certificate was issued that established the child's new identity and relationship with their adoptive family. Mothers were not informed about the adoptive families, and the very fact of their adoption was usually kept secret from the children though changes in legislation now allow access to information if no veto from the other party was put in place." (from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport21/rr21b.html).

Earlier I wrote "adoption, where it now occurs, should be run in an open way so that children should have access to contact with their biological parents. This I do believe was a failing of the past."

The decision as to whether baby's would be put up adoption was made by the mother and her family. Governments had no policies regarding state baby theft or forced adoption.

Suseonline, sorry if you find the term "irresponsible breeding" offensive, but that's what it is, not a woman's right but a woman's, and a man's, folly. What right should anybody have to expect everyone else to pick up the tag for spreading their spawn into the world?
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 24 March 2013 9:54:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

May I politely again suggest to you to contact
the link I gave you and get a copy of the key
issues. In which you stated that you were interested
and were unable to find.

I can't help you if you won't help yourself.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 24 March 2013 10:01:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yar...Luciferase. I was a product of that thar "irresponsible breeding".

My biological mother (I've since discovered) wasn't actually forced, but was actively persuaded (against her preference) to adopt me out. She stayed with a "nice" doctor and his family when she was 'with child" - and she assumed with a lot of advice from her aunties that that is the sort of family I would end up with.

Unfortunately I ended up in a family with an alcoholic gambler for a dad - and the "family" eventually shattered into a thousand pieces when I was eight. Of course it could have ended up totally opposite, but it didn't.

Anyway, when I was forty one I got a phone call from a woman I didn't know who told me she was my half sister. So I got a whole lot of info and (at last!) a sense of my own history, which I had sorely craved (Scottish heritage on my mum's side - my father was American, probably part American Indian, but I have hardly anything on him because my biological mother died a year before my sister rang)

When I learned all about my biological mother and her experience, it was her - not myself - that I had sympathy for.

Finally, all them "spawn" are actually "people" who inhabit your world. Some of them like to have the same sense of their antecedents as you take for granted.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 24 March 2013 10:47:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is often sadly lacking in these discussions is a sense of history.

Australia post-WW2 was reeling from the wartime economy that diverted production into goods, mainly agricultural, that were needed by England (largely) for war. Industries had been curtailed, skills and plant lost and the men with the skills and expertise to operate them were dead or scattered to the four winds.

Before were the Great Depression and WW1. No-one now can comprehend the set-backs and suffering. Unfortunately the available sources are predominately the result of the extensive censorship of the time. Oral histories had no priority for governments that had a lot to bury. The sad pun is deliberate.

Just as an example, people thought themselves lucky to have dripping for a white bread sandwich.

On top of that were the dictatorial and uncaring policies of governments, most led by the outrageous cringing sycophantic anglophile Bob Menzies, who infamously declared and meant it, that the population should starve first rather than seek any relief from the repayment of Australia's wartime debt to the UK. On the other hand the UK itself was to delay its repayments to the US to times when inflation reduced its value.

Emphatically YES, the State, the federal government led by Menzies was at fault for opportunistically implementing a policy, closed adoption, that admirably served its own ideological purposes -parsimonious to its own citizens to an extreme- and while at the same time meeting the 'advances' in adoption advised by ivory tower social science academics and bureaucrats whose own 'research' and advice were sadly deficient. They should have tried out their own advice.

It is not the churches but the State, your own government that should be feared. The framers of the US Constitution were right all along.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 March 2013 11:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I'm spawn of my parents, you're spawn, we're all spawn and we're people. I don't get the basis of the offense taken.

Suseonline, "Brainwashing and depersonalization to comply with the 'rules'...". Whose "rules" and ho enforced them? Stop leaving families out of it!

Lexi, this isn't poker. Yes, let's give thought to those badly affected by adoption. Where $hit happened, and it was bound to given the sheer numbers and the emotions involved, let's acknowledge that pain was/is suffered. However, let's lay blame where it's due and not on governments for things going on behind doors where families grappled.

I can find no legislation from the 40's through to the early 70's in your reference that involves forced adoption. I do find the following listed, but nothing within to support your insistence:

• Legislation on adoption commenced in Western Australia in 1896, with similar legislation in other jurisdictions following.
• Before the introduction of state legislation on adoption, “baby farming and infanticide was not uncommon.
• Legislative changes emerged from the 1960s that enshrined the concept of adoption secrecy and the ideal of having a “clean break” from the birth mother.
• The Council of the Single Mother and her Children (CSMC) was set up in 1969, which set out to challenge the stigma of adoption and to support single and relinquishing mothers.
• The status of “illegitimacy” disappeared in the early 1970s, starting with a Status of Children Act in both Victoria and Tasmania in 1974 (in which the status was changed to “ex-nuptial”).
• Abortion became allowable in most states from the early 1970s (the 1969 Menhennitt judgement in Victoria and 1971 Levine judgement in NSW).
• Further legislative reforms started to overturn the blanket of secrecy surrounding adoption (up until changes in 1980s, information on birth parents was not made available to adopted children/adults)
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 24 March 2013 1:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

"....I don't get the basis for the offense taken."

No, I don't expect you would.

............

I'll add that I believe the chief motive for adoptions, forced or merely encouraged, back then, emanated in the main from a collective societal morality.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 24 March 2013 2:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting finding is that women's magazines were very strong supporters of removal of babies from unwed mothers, removal immediately after birth and closed adoption.

Doubtless the women's magazines were reflecting the attitudes of women at the time. It must be a bitter pill for the mothers affected that the moral majority of women judged them so harshly and were so enthusiastic, zealous, and heavy handed in extending and implementing the policy.

Nursing and other services to women in child birth were dominated and controlled by women.

Government was responsible for the policy that encouraged and permitted the excesses to occur. Government was also responsible for the social problem attributable to the lack of support for unplanned pregnancies.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 March 2013 2:24:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

Again you tell me that you couldn't find anything.
Well you did not look hard enough or in the right
places. Try again Googling -

forcedadoptionsapology@a.g.gov.au.

And scroll down the left-hand side to a heading
entitled:

Related Websites:

The following comes up :

1) Senate Committee Report on former forced adoption policies and
practices.

2) Impact of past adoption practices: Summary of Key Issues from
Australian Research.

3) Past adoption practice page - Dept of Families,
Housing, Community Services.

And if you still can't find it - Give up.

And you're right this isn't poker - it's called Research.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 24 March 2013 3:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Open minds, not always seen, can find a link on the ABC web page.
It is about this subject and has other links, all to reliable sources.
All seeming to back the thoughts of the women here, and mine.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 March 2013 3:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, Lexi, that is an email addy not a website.
Secondly, why don't you post the exact url where, QED, your point is proven? Quite simple really. However, may I impose upon you further to ensure that your references are not merely to this generic term "practices" (which may or may not pertain to government actions, it's never defined) but, instead, to overt policies legislated and carried out by government that forced adoptions upon unwilling mothers. (I've already acknowledged that welfare was not provided until 1973, a position that I acknowledge brought about adoptions, so you can spare me that one).

Furthermore, do you acknowledge that families made decisions about adoption, and generally behind closed doors? I haven't heard any concession on this from you, as if it simply didn't happen.

Suseonline, I ask again, just because I am quite interested, What right should anybody have to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for spreading their spawn, DNA, offspring, people, (geez, I dunno, sorry Poirot if I'm hurting feelings again) into the world? I've said my piece on this but I'd really like to hear a cogent justification.

OTB: "Government was responsible for the policy that encouraged and permitted the excesses to occur. Government was also responsible for the social problem attributable to the lack of support for unplanned pregnancies." Encouraged? This is not supported by legislation of the day. Government did not see its role then as the surrogate breadwinner it is today. Many "social problems" we have today as a result of this change makes issues surrounding adoption comparatively insignificant, IMO.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 24 March 2013 4:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

The formal legislation is only part of it. Heads of government agencies have the delegation to interpret legislation and frame policy and processes to implement. Ministers are kept informed.

It has always been the expectation of government that its policies are interpreted in line with its ideology. The is the whole messy business of the public service being required to be 'responsive' to the government of the day. It has resulted in incoming governments in recent times going much further than the Westminster model and appointing senior public servants of choice (who then appoint their own in turn). That is moving towards the US 'Spoils System'.

As you say, the (Menzies) government of the day did not see itself supporting unmarried mothers. Its decisions were deliberate. It is apparent from the strong message of the women's magazines of the day and from the lack of complaints at the time that Australian women agreed with the policies (as women voters also strongly agreed with sending young men who couldn't vote to Vietnam). The brutal honesty is that it was policy framed on the morality of women and very largely enacted by women.

I take it you are not denying the evidence that the parliamentary committee had before it and its assessment of that evidence.

That parents mainly women suffered as a result of the misled policies is clear. All children would have suffered to an extent through loss of medical history. Some claim emotional loss as well. That there were victims is agreed and to my knowledge no politician has raised objection. Many years of operation of the policies would indicate that government was made fully aware of the distress it caused, and the moral and ethical problems.

How far harm and poverty should go before government acts is ultimately decided by the electorate. That goes some way to explaining why the Whitlam government was eventually elected.

You disagree that government is morally bound to act to support the poor. You disagree with child support under any conditions. Others disagree with you.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 24 March 2013 7:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onthebeach, you do go on.

In my experience, in the day, it was not only those less well to do girls who could not keep their nickers on. In the day when breeding was not a career choice, girls getting pregnant accidentally, rather than by choice was the norm.

Accidents were spread through out society, & in fact it was the more privileged families who were more likely to be appalled, & kick the offending girl out. It happened to a number of acquaintances who were definitely not of any underprivileged class.

No one has a right to decide to go on welfare. Top overcome this problem today we should seriously consider a choice of adoption, or you are on your own.

This should include the father if this is known, & proven.

I suppose this is academic. If the boat people are allowed to continue to flood the country, the country will inevitably become Muslim, & we all know what will happen then to unwed mothers.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 24 March 2013 8:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB:"I take it you are not denying the evidence that the parliamentary committee had before it and its assessment of that evidence."

I'm not saying the evidence is wrong, there was clearly suffering. The conclusion was essentially that government could have done more but didn't, such as paying welfare to unwed mothers, not that it "forced" adoptions through legislation. I disagree with apologizing for what the committee perceived to be past wrong-doings because I do not think they were wrong. Any apology should be made within the families in which the forcing took place rather than laying the blame at the feet of my parents and grand-parents, which is what has been done by a parliamentary apology.

"You disagree that government is morally bound to act to support the poor." Incorrect, you made that up.

"You disagree with child support under any conditions." Incorrect with respect to widows and deserted mothers of under 18 children who were responsible in their reproductive intentions i.e. to raise children in a family capable of supporting their needs.

"Others disagree with you." Correct.

My parents and grandparents were not wrong, IMO, yet we will be compensating thousands on the basis that they were, just wait and see.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 24 March 2013 8:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase "Suseonline, I ask again, just because I am quite interested, What right should anybody have to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for spreading their spawn, DNA, offspring, people..."

You may 'spread spawn' Luciferase, but the average human makes love and may have children as a result.

Australia is rich enough and has many good people who don't want to see children suffer as a result of their parent's decisions.

So if a child's parent(s) is unwilling or unable, for whatever reason, to work enough to provide enough food and shelter for them, then the Government will step in and provide enough for the basics at least.

The average intelligent Australian knows we have to at least try to do our best for innocent children who would otherwise be in dire straights without help.

I don't believe parents should get paid to sit on their behinds forever, but some of these people are just beyond help at times, so their kids shouldn't have to suffer.
And no, we shouldn't punish the kids by dragging them away from their parents and adopting them out... That is inhumane.

If we say that all people, including parents, should work if they are able, then we should also have all our elderly working until they are physically unable to as well.
Thay's only fair isn't it?
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 24 March 2013 8:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well any balanced observer would have to agree, my point has been shown here.
In a thread that is about so much pain, from an era that saw women shamed, for doing what men always have done.
Having sex out side marriage, we talk of the theft of their children.
And show links to prove it took place.
Unable to defend that wrong, but not wanting to say sorry, some divert the thread.
To find a way, to insult women.
And defend men.
For exactly the same thing!
Looking back, I clearly see the bigotry of Church, taking its high moral ground in the era most offenses against Children, by Ministers, took place.
And at the time bigoted men from those Churches stole these kids.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 25 March 2013 6:56:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

Did you scroll down and click onto the related
websites that I cited for you in my previous post?

They are not email sites but websites and you can
download the information either in part or the
entire reports.

See you on another thread.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 25 March 2013 9:44:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, "To find a way, to insult women.
And defend men."

That would be diverting the thread.

The discussion is about choice, responsibility and the limits of welfare, and should the State be continually interfering in lives. All worthwhile arguments by Luciferase, Hasbeen and others and the increase in single parent families might support their view (if I take it rightly) that it (single supporting mother's benefit) has been construed as an entitlement and there are those who try to take advantage of it.

To that argument one could add the statistic that few of the single mothers are young inexperienced women as people might expect. A large proportion are in their thirties, have one child and do not return to participate in the workforce to the extent that married mothers do.

There are other differences for instance married mothers tend to have two children, while single supporting mothers usually have one, or in some cases many. Obviously it is more complex than many imagine and if different for say aboriginals where the number on the single mother's benefit grossly exceeds that of the majority on the welfare and few might get a job later.

While I believe that a just society would never have done as the Menzies government did and Whitlam was right to introduce a single mother's benefit, I do agree that single supporting mothers (or solo parents if anyone wishes) should be offered training and returned to work when the child is old enough. I think the present government said that is eight years old which is fair enough, considering that many married women have been returning to work at their own choice anywhere from six weeks from birth.

Maybe too the community is a somewhat jaded of the constant apologies for alleged past wrongs and the expectation is that a new victim group seeking privileges is being set up. I do not think it is about compensation and obtaining special 'victim' treatment. Notably the usual horde of ravenous lawyers, advocates and left activists are nowhere to be seen.

These are simply sad, wounded people.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 25 March 2013 9:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

On this thread, firstly we had Susie implying that men were to blame. Then Lexi who stated that government policies were to blame for forced adoptions. No one has yet cited legislation that makes forced adoption policy, nor quoted from Hansard where an opposition spoke against it. Adoption was accepted.

There is no doubt an unwanted pregnancy was a traumatic situation and had to be dealt with. Most girls married the father but there were some that did not or could not, for a variety of reasons.

If she did not have the support of her family she either had a backyard abortion or had the baby in an institution set up for that purpose. No doubt the birthing homes encounted every scenario from the baby taken away against the girls will, to the girl that wanted to be rid of the 'thing' quickly so whe could get back to her previous carefree life.

The birthing homes were set up by caring people concerned for the well being of the girls and their babies. Having provided medical assistance to the girls then attention was given to the care for the child. If the girl did not have the support of her family it was simply not practical for her to try and raise the child on her own, in most cases. So there would have been much pressure on her to give the baby up for adoption.

Prior to this system of adoption the same girl would have been on the street. It should be recognised that some girls parents, especially in rural places, kept the pregnancy quiet and reared the child as their own and never disclosed that the child was in fact their daughters.

So the adoptive system was an improvement and I believe saved many a girls life and that of her baby. There is a failure to acknowledge the social conditions of the time when little or no government assistance was available.

I see this government apology as a cynical attempt by this government to exploit an emotional situation to garner a few votes.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 25 March 2013 10:05:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it a bit strange that we all get upset about forced adoptions, yet spare lillte to no thought about the thousands of young men and women who were FORCEFULLY taken from their families, to fight someone els'es war in a foreign land, in the accepted knowledge that many of them would never be seen again.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't sell newspapers.

People who our forefathers chose as leaders at the time, were simply making descisions what were considered at that time to be in the best interest of either those involved or the country at large.

So get over it!
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There have been State and Territory apologies leading up to it. See here,

http://www.ag.gov.au/About/ForcedAdoptionsApology/Pages/StateandTerritoryGovernmentApologies.aspx

As with the State and Territory reviews of forced adoption, there was broad agreement by all political parties that an apology was needed and long overdue. Did anyone speak against it in the federal parliament?

This is the reference group and it seems to be well qualified and earnest,

http://www.ag.gov.au/About/ForcedAdoptionsApology/Pages/ForcedAdoptionsApologyReferenceGroup.aspx
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:21:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Article with a video of apology made by the NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/parliament-apologises-for-forced-adoptions-20120920-268eg.html

The report notes that the apology was a recommendation of an inquiry in 2000.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/parliament-apologises-for-forced-adoptions-20120920-268eg.html
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:32:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Governments make the laws and Police them.
Hence the very well put together Public sorry.
Like Lexi I will see all in another thread
Posted by Belly, Monday, 25 March 2013 2:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, if you say something is there and I say it isn't, the onus is not upon me to prove you are right. There is nothing there indicating legislated, forced adoption. I feel I've wrestled with a plume of smoke, and still you are mute on the involvement of families.

Belly, the government made no adoption laws that police enforced as it did over aborigines. If it did, join Lexi and prove it!

Suseonline, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding, "If we say that all people, including parents, should work if they are able, then we should also have all our elderly working until they are physically unable to as well. Thay's only fair isn't it?", you may be onto something. Why should the able-bodied elderly be pensioned off when women exercising their procreative "rights" need the same taxpayers' money?

I believe matters I have raised on this thread needed airing but the fact of "The Apology" indicates that I am in a minority. I can't turn back the clock to what I believe was a more enlightened time, but I do expect history to repeat itself should Australia ever have to make some very, very hard decisions about welfare direction.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, it's not a case of 'if' but 'when' when it comes to welfare descisions, as we simply can not continue to have this sector of our society grow the way it has over the past twenty odd years.

Plus, we have to consider variables, such as the illegals that are placing untold strain on our already buckling system, an avoidable situation that the Rud/Gillard labor government should never be forgiven for.

Unfortunately, given that most governments are 'reactive' as opposed to 'proactive' chances are, we will be all but broke before real reform kicks in. The old 'too little too late' scenario.

But either way we have to address our excess baggage because the debt we have been left with will take some serious commitment to repay and ANY form of low value for money schemes will need to be addressed and like it or not, a large portion of welfare is one such case of excess baggage.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 6:06:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechtub can you look again at your last post?
What has it got to do with the thread, and its continuing direction?
Why did you address the very person who is trying to say black is white?
You used it! the thread, to sneak in your informed view, get down on your knees and hope you are ill informed.
If not you are in real trouble.
I note as evidence I am not alone in my views you had again, had a single post thread recently, yours!
Footpath pizza that one was.
In the end, do you understand not even the Lib/Nats coalition share your view on welfare.
Do you under stand both party,s need and want less waste but not mass starvation.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 6:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferase,

This isn't about proving me right or you wrong.
This is about directing you to the information
you're seeking which is available on the websites
I've given you. However, I shall leave you to your
convictions.

All The Best.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 9:16:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing I find fascinating is that "work", apparently, continues to be categorised as anything that takes place "outside" the domestic sphere.

Nothing changes....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 9:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Throughout we seem to be hearing that "the churches" did this and "the government" did that. Its easier to condemn the actions of these anonymous things than to think of these actions as being done by someone.

But remember, if all the dastardly acts really did happen, they were done by people. By the local nurse, the family doctor, the girl's (presumably) loving parents. So when we recklessly condemn these actions, remember that we are condemning real people. People who thought at the time, and probably still do, that they were doing good for the child and good for the girl.

That is why, when you read the government's reports and all the other literature, you won't find commentary from the actual people who took the child, organised the adoption, counselled the girl. These people are written out of the story because the 'sorriers' want to pretend it was all done by some disembodied institution. So we end up with this story where all these really bad things were done by....no one!!

But if you want to pretend that these people were involved in some vicious moral crusade against the 'poor' girls, just remember who you're talking about. Your mother, your grandmother, the kindly old lady down the street, the now retired old doctor. These are the people who you think did these things. Oh, and your parents and grandparents were electing government after government disposed to continue these 'crimes'. And its not as if it was a secret so they are also complicit.

Personally I have a much higher opinion of my predecessors and believe that they believe(d) they were doing the right thing and therefore have nothing to apologise for. From the data I mentioned earlier, it seems that many of the girls who gave up their child agree. But they are written out the story as well.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 9:52:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze has a point. Most families confronted by this dilemma were likely to have made there decision to conform with the moralities of the time. Most people aspired to a middle-class morality which precluded such circumstances as an unwed mother amongst their lot. What would the rellies and neighbours say?

I'm lucky enough to possess copies of letters between my biological mother and her aunties that were written when she was pregnant with me (her mother died when she was young). From memory (I only read them once as I found them quite confronting) the letters started out talking about preparing for the baby, making clothes etc...then somewhere along the line as the communications continued, the aunties began to extol the merits of giving me up...everything changed.

Will dig them out later and see if there any hints to the mindset of the times.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 10:27:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also wanted to add that this was a very "middle-class" family. My mother's father was fairly high up in a successful and well-known pharmaceutical company.

But even the the lower middles and the working-class aspired to the general morality. They took their cues from their "betters" and aped their intolerance.

Also, if an apology is in order, then the government as representative of the general population "is" the one to extend it.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 10:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot we don't pay people to clean their teeth, or wipe their backsides, but I gather you think we should.

If people can't manage to wash their cloths, cook their food, & go to work, they are a waste of space. No one should expect to be paid to do the house work, or even mow the nature strip in front of the house.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 10:52:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

I was merely pointing out that domestic "work" has always been undervalued (not necessarily in monetary terms) - and always will be.

As far as paying people to clean their teeth and wipe their backsides...you're right.

Instead we pay people to clean other people's teeth and wipe their backsides...that's capitalism.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 10:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Poirot, that's lefty/green economics. They want every one in service industries. Can't stand the idea that someone might dig a hole, plow a field or, god forbid, build a car.

Capitalism digs holes, [& pulls out iron ore or coal], plows fields, & [harvests lots of food], & builds lots of cars. Capitalism is where you produce lots of stuff, & sell it for a huge profit, because you are better at doing it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 4:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to see how capitalism could do without so-called service industries, Hasbeen.

We all know that if Mrs A pays Mrs B to look after her kids, that GDP goes up. If Mrs A looks after her own kids, GDP is unaffected.

That's reality.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 5:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, you're right Belly, I must confess I didn't properly read the opening post.

My bad!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 6:52:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, you have rounded it up perfectly.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 8:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be so silly Poirot, Mrs B is on the dole, so doesn't report the income, as she would loose some bludge money, & have to pay tax.

So the transaction doesn't make the GDP figures.

Hopefully Mrs A is doing something productive, & paying tax, to help fund Mrs Bs bludge money.

The worst aspect is that after this transaction, Mrs B probably has a greater net disposable income than Mrs A. A typical result in a bloated welfare system.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 12:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any one remember what the thread is about?
And have we noticed how conveniently we turned it away from its path.
To denigrate women.
I must have got it wrong.
Seems those mums who had the kids stolen are dole bludgers who rip us all off.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 5:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au contraire, Hasbeen,

Mrs B is probably working at a daycare centre wiping Mrs A's child's bottom so that Mrs A can go off to work at another daycare centre, etc...GDP gets loaded all the way.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 8:20:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Victim politics has a history in Australia. For the recognised victim groups the advocacy starts on toddler TV and carries through Kindy, Pre-School and relentlessly through the State education system. For examples, in later education, even Shakespeare's plays are re-interpreted according to feminist ideology, and Indigenous are noble, peaceful land carers who were decimated by warlike 'whites'.

It is known that the Gold Standard for attachment to the guvvy teat forever is to be recognised as a member of a recognised, government-approved victim group. It has been that way for forty years and more.

As well, there are regular reports of massive abuses and wastage of such welfare and grants, and the federal government's own auditor the ANAO, has reported and made recommendations to Parliament for years for little apparent positive change. Through clever media manipulation the 'victim' dog swings the government dog every time and "Ka-Ching!", the cash registers open.

Also, the role of Prime Minister has become so heavily politicised that it is impossible for the incumbent to make a statement on behalf of the Parliament and Australia, without the smell of a secondary political agenda.

Despite all of that it should be possible to regard an apology that is supported by both State and federal parliaments and by all political parties, as being precisely that and no fraud or secondary agenda. Regardless of one's opinion of Julia Gillard, there should be some respect for the post of PM. The PM apologised on behalf of Australia, fair enough!

There is not a shred of evidence that the sad mothers and fathers affected ever contemplated any compensation and none has been offered. The well entrenched 'Gold Card' victim groups are jealously guarding THEIR guvvy welfare teats anyhow, so no chance.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 9:44:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That should be, "the 'victim' tail swings the government dog.."
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 9:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was a good subject, and it bought many views from all sides.
We, being of different ages had different views.
My age 67 bough thoughts of young girls missing from country towns and the reasons given rarely questioned.
To be honest our parents knew we kids did not.
But the overall welfare of all children in those days was cruel, compared to todays.
How could todays 30 year old know that, not having seen it.
I saw much that reminds me some kids never had a chance.
Reminds me too that some mums had no chance of fairness as their children went never some times, to be seen again.
I FEAR! 30 years from now, the story of SOME kids in Foster homes without love or care, the cash economy Foster parents, actions will bring out great pain again, and hope the dead hand of public servants running such things, and doing it badly, will be gone.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 31 March 2013 3:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have sympathy for almost everyone involved in these events, both past and present.

Accept this partly, even when did learn how almost joined those taken when government people came visiting.

Thanks to my father's efforts moving my mother away this did not happen.

Made clear by others was just how close this was at the time.

Such things still happen, it needs always be for true welfare of the child.

Our challenge is to ensure all these decisions made in court, subject to public review, and reported with court privacy orders of names.

Lest we forget..
Posted by polpak, Sunday, 14 April 2013 7:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy