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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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