Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

FA Hayek

optogirl wrote: »

Somewhere where they could be looked after with compassion & kindness?

Does not answer my question. OK, lets make it simple. Where were they looked after before the 1920's?

FA Hayek

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe at home with their families as frostyjack reckons they should have been, instead of in the care of the nuns in the Mother and Baby homes..... Still, where else could they go to ensure, to the best of their ability, that their babies had a chance in life, not realising that would not be realised......

Meanwhile, there seems to have been a lack of communication in Leinster House today on the issue debate there...... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dil-debate-on-tuam-babies-scandal-delayed-as-less-than-20-tds-show-up-35515795.html

But their families were the ones that threw them out?

Zubeneschamali

FA Hayek wrote: »

Did you know that some of the sisters who set up the first mother and baby homes in the 1920's were sent over from the UK and that they were modelled on those in Britain?

Is that where they learned to kill children through neglect and then inter them in an unmarked disused sewer? Where exactly in Britain did this happen?

And no, we do not think that this is all the fault of the Roman Catholic Church - the Bethany Home was an appalling institution run by the Church of Ireland.

.......

This post has been deleted.

smacl

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, the RCC are the only organisation in the world to hold those views of course....

Whataboutery?

Meanwhile our nearest neighbour, the UK there were never a need for mother and baby homes at all and things like homosexuality were legal and accepted in the 1920's.

You've had to go back to the 20s for the UK to draw a comparison with Ireland in the 50s. In terms of eliminating toxic attitudes towards sexuality, this country has always lagged behind the UK by some decades, e.g.

- Decriminalisation of same sex activity, Ireland 1993, UK 1967
- Over the counter availability of condoms, Ireland 1979,UK never illegal
- Access to abortion services, Ireland still waiting, UK 1967

Did you know that some of the sisters who set up the first mother and baby homes in the 1920's were sent over from the UK and that they were modelled on those in Britain? Tell me then, how much power did the RCC have in the UK? Effectively no power of course, yet are you telling me they somehow brainwashed the British protestant establishment to hand in their pregnant women? Why did the USA have over 150 'maternity' homes in the 1960's run by private religious orders?

The RCC operated Magdelene Asylums in the UK from 1758 onwards, and there have been homes for 'fallen women' (primarily prostitutes) predating that. However, you're comparing the Ireland of the 1950s with the UK from a different era. I don't doubt that other religious orders ran similar operations to the Catholics, but again this is just whataboutery.

As usual we are looking at this from an inward points of view, as if Ireland is unique and that the RCC is the seed that caused all this. Of course this world view is nonsense in the grand scheme of things.

Not inward looking or unique to Ireland at all. The RCC has a long and widespread history of abuse wherever it goes.

aloyisious

FA Hayek wrote: »

But their families were the ones that threw them out?

Yes, treating them as per the "best" moral advice and not in line with the best morals when the women were "in the family way". So surprisingly appropriate a sobriquet when it came to keeping the good moral family name intact.

Had the advice been properly attuned to the actual needs of humanity, the women and their children would probably have been part of a proper family and the nuns abilities employed elsewhere benefitting humanity and God properly. Again it comes back to the "best" moral advice being propounded from the pulpit. One can say the nuns themselves were, for the most part, brainwashed products of the same "best" moral advice as the laity, whenceforth came their response to the women.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Can't help but wonder if Ann Lovett and her child would have died - cold, alone and unloved - had that depraved and evil organization not done its damndest to block her, and so many other vulnerable, uninformed and innocent people, from learning anything about sex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Lovett

I heard an interview with Philomena Lee where she said that she had no idea what sex was, or how babies were made. She didn't even know she was pregnant until a family member noticed her swelling stomach. All of our mothers would probably have known someone who had no idea what was happening to them when they started menstruating.

frostyjacks wrote: »

You do realise that if people had actually listened to the Church's message of abstaining from sex outside marriage, then that tragedy would never had occurred, along with the Tuam babies, the Magdalene laundries etc.

If only people didn't act like humans the world would be great, eh?

frostyjacks wrote: »

You The Church's teachings are good and pure;

Shame that the clergy seem so bad at following them, eh?

Mark Hamill

frostyjacks wrote: »

You do realise that if people had actually listened to the Church's message of abstaining from sex outside marriage, then that tragedy would never had occurred, along with the Tuam babies, the Magdalene laundries etc. The Church's teachings are good and pure; it is man who is weak and sinful.

So because people didn't listen to the Church's message, the Church had no choice but to abuse and/or kill those in the Laundries and the likes of Tuam? Where exactly in the Church's good and pure teachings does it say that unmarried pregnant women should be taken from their families and used as slaves while their children are sold off or allowed to die if they can't be sold?

gctest50

frostyjacks wrote: »

You do realise that if people had actually listened to the Church's message of abstaining from sex outside marriage, then that tragedy would never had occurred, along with the Tuam babies, the Magdalene laundries etc. The Church's teachings are good and pure; it is man who is weak and sinful.

.

PopePalpatine

gctest50 wrote: »

.

You missed the .jpg at the end of your link.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

I heard an interview with Philomena Lee where she said that she had no idea what sex was, or how babies were made.

I recall my grandmother - having kids back in the 1930's and 1940's - telling me that she learned where her first baby was going to come out from while in the delivery room. I can only imagine that she was similarly uninformed about sex and probably learned it on the job, so to speak.

One of her daughters, probably similarly clueless, became pregnant back in the 1960's and - with the full co-operation of, if not management by, the church in Kerry - was shipped to Boston where she had the child at a catholic-controlled hospital who removed her baby almost immediately following birth and either sold her into, or simple gave her into, the local adoption industry there. The same woman went on to marry the father, took up heavy smoking and heavy drinking while being a mum to the two more kids they had together. Ultimately, they divorced, one child committed suicide and I bumped into the other at her funeral this week. Nobody knows what happened to the other daughter who must be in her early 50's now.

In hearing about the story from family members, I don't recall anybody suggesting that the church or anybody in it or anybody connected with it, showed so much as an ounce of compassion or human kindness for this unlucky woman or her lost child.

robindch

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No doubt I'll go to my grave making the following claim, but the RCC's only aim is to propagate itself - in effect, it's an entirely selfish meme dedicated to nothing more than reproduction. Metaphorically, one can see this interest in reproduction reflected in its continuous objection to abortion and contraception - the birth's the thing.

From the RCC's perspective, anything which isn't contributing in some way - either directly, or indirectly - to the church's mission to propagate itself, is a waste of time and space.

Luckily for future generations, society (and particularly education and the emancipation of woman) is happening much faster than the church can evolve and it's likely that the church will eventually expire naturally. But not, unfortunately, before capturing and thereby demeaning many more people.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

You do realise that if people had actually listened to the Church's message of abstaining from sex outside marriage, then that tragedy would never had occurred, along with the Tuam babies, the Magdalene laundries etc. The Church's teachings are good and pure; it is man who is weak and sinful.

The church's teachings are flawed and illogical,
They go against basic human nature to have sex,

We've seen what the church's teachings have done, they've caused the deaths of needless thousands from AIDS in countrys because their solution is to not have sex. A far better solution is to educate people in relation to proper condom use.

The church not only has the blood of all the children in Ireland that they've caused the deaths of, but also the blood of all the people that have died from aids due to their refusal to educate those people on proper contraception.

The best you can hope for here Frosty is that the nuns were criminally negligent in their duty's. You can never clean all the blood off the church's hands no matter how much you may pray or how much you scrub. The church has failed children, mothers, familys, this country and every catholic in the world due to the various crimes they have carried out over countless decades.

I'm not sure if you are blind to the truth or if you're ignoring the truth, if you are ignoring the truth then you really have to question your ability to use empathy and compassion towards a fellow human being because you are far more interested in blaming everyone else other then the people who have the blood on their hands.

Cabaal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if someone wants to run with this argument, they really would need to explain why the nuns didn't bother reporting to the Garda the disappearance of 796 infant bodies awaiting burial.

Spot on,
so we;re in a situation where they are criminally negligent...at best!

frostyjacks

There's a really poisonous atmosphere around this story, where anyone who treads the middle ground and wants to wait until the facts are established is branded some kind of apologist for institutional abuse.

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

gctest50

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a really poisonous atmosphere around this story, where anyone who treads the middle ground and wants to wait until the facts are established is branded some kind of apologist for institutional abuse.

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

Can you not tell which is better ?

Kids running around or being starved to death ?

frostyjacks wrote: »

.......
The homes served a purpose......

So this makes it ok ?

Unit 731 served a purpose - the nuns were doing the same for money - experimenting on kids

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a really poisonous atmosphere around this story, where anyone who treads the middle ground and wants to wait until the facts are established is branded some kind of apologist for institutional abuse.

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

Suggesting multiple times that the Tuam story is 'fake news' is not treading the middle ground.

Esel

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a really poisonous atmosphere around this story, where anyone who treads the middle ground and wants to wait until the facts are established is branded some kind of apologist for institutional abuse.

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

It's better than them being stacked up in a chamber 'like Cidona bottles' anyway.

Akrasia

frostyjacks wrote: »

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

I can't believe that you think unmarried mothers are so unqualified to raise a child that they are better off locked up as slaves while their babies are sold or allowed to die...

gctest50

.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/nun-admits-children-involved-in-medical-trials-30339349.html

frostyjacks

Akrasia wrote: »

I can't believe that you think unmarried mothers are so unqualified to raise a child that they are better off locked up as slaves while their babies are sold or allowed to die...

It's gone from one extreme to the other. It wasn't ideal to institutionalise single mothers, but neither is my taxes being used to subsidise them having illegitimate children. There is a better way of doing things.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's gone from one extreme to the other. It wasn't ideal to institutionalise single mothers, but neither is my taxes being used to subsidise them having illegitimate children. There is a better way of doing things.

What makes children illegitimate?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand.

Supply to who exactly?
Supply to Americans without the birth mothers consent? This happened after all.

Supply without proper records being kept?

Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

What kids are these exactly?
In case you missed it around 40 percent of children born in this state are outside of marriage,

If you think that kids born out of marriage or the mothers that gave birth to them are somehow of a lessor class or value to those born in a marriage then shame on you.

The very fact you are rambling on about fatherless children clearly shows you have a chip on your shoulder about them and you see them as "different".

.......

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's gone from one extreme to the other. It wasn't ideal to institutionalise single mothers, but neither is my taxes being used to subsidise them having illegitimate children. There is a better way of doing things.

Wasn't ideal?
It was plane out and out wrong to lock up women in institutions , it's that simple.

The solution here is a good education system, in general and also in relation to sex and reproduction. This is something the church is simply incapable and unwilling to do.

There is nothing wrong with a good sex edd programme, knowledge is power.

Cabaal

....... wrote: »

You must be in favour of abortion in the case of unmarried mothers then? So as not to waste your taxes like?

Nah, don't be silly, abortion is wrong because it'll "kill" the fetus. Frosty will never agree with that.

On the other hand once it's come to term and it's been born you can just starve it to death or mistreat it until the baby dies. If it does die then it's an unholy sin and you don't even have to give it a proper burial.

Failing that you can always make a few punts by selling it off or if it's a female you can just make it wash clothes like a slave for a good few decades.

And after all this happens you don't have to worry because when the victims speak out you can claim they are only saying stuff to get money. If you do get found out you can also just stall paying compensation until the victims are dead.

Easy peasy for an organisation that believes it speaks for a god.



The use of the term it above is intentional, it's clear the church didn't see these kids as human and equal to them. Same goes for the mothers.

Zubeneschamali

frostyjacks wrote: »

Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

Yes, of course. You would prefer they were dying in a home behind a high wall out of sight?

Qs

frostyjacks wrote: »

The homes served a purpose. Supply and demand. Look at what we have today, fatherless kids running the streets till all hours. Is that in anyway better?

Better than sending them away to have the nun abuse them and throw them away like garbage? Of course its better, you'd have to be a complete psychopath to think otherwise.

aloyisious

It would be worthwhile to either change over to The Late late Show now or watch it later when it's replayed. Catherine Corless and survivors of the home are on it telling what they know of it. The stories are having a visible effect on the audience.

Kinda hard to hear one man describe how the local PP showed up at his home to instruct his family that his mother would have to leave the town as she was unmarried and pregnant, and how her father had to put his Mum on the crossbar of his bike and cycle 20 miles to the home with her.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's gone from one extreme to the other. It wasn't ideal to institutionalise single mothers, but neither is my taxes being used to subsidise them having illegitimate children. There is a better way of doing things.

Come on, tell us what the better way is. Are you suggesting some method or another of reducing the number of pregnancies, in a manner not approved of by clerics?

It's not outside the bounds of possibility that had the priests shown humanity to the women over the past few decades, they and the institute they represent would have a better reputation and credibility than it does. Ditto for the way the nuns behaviour in the homes countrywide has done down the institute. That was all their own doing.

Edit:actually I probably sounded and came across as rather harsh to you in my first two sentences above. I am getting more than a little bit irritated at what I see as deliberate stonewalling and evasion by others on the issue of the nuns, and the institute they ultimately represent here, responsibility for their actions. I'd like to hear what you see as a better way to do things in relation to reducing the number of pregnancies. Those responsible for what happened behind the walls of the homes don't merit or deserve your sympathy.