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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All

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