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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.