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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.