"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Tramore Tilly · 07-03-2017 10:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We can only judge it from our viewpoint, and while bearing in mind that we cannot see it from their. They were no better nor worse than us, rather acting within the context of their time and what was considered correct to do. So we can say that we, now, would not do the same thing, we cannot condemn others for doing it in a different time - we would likely have done the same had we been in their shoes.

No better nor worse than us? I'm a hell of a lot better than those b*tches and b*st*rds who tortured women and children and I will condemn, judge and detest every last one of the hungry animals who could treat another human being, babies included like they did. I honestly hate and despise every last one of them and anyone who has the coldness to justify what they did.

bodice ripper · 07-03-2017 10:05PM

infogiver wrote:

I think reading this thread that it would be a very good idea if anyone who hasn't already, sit down with someone in their 80s and ask them about Ireland in the 40s and 50s. Ask them about Irish people. About farming families and business families and social politics. The amount of posters applying 21st century sensibilities to an era that may as well be 600 years ago as 60 is ridiculous.

I did. My grandma says the local priest came to take the kids when her mother died. He refused (angrily and loudly). It was possible.

Tramore Tilly · 07-03-2017 10:06PM

infogiver wrote: »

I think reading this thread that it would be a very good idea if anyone who hasn't already, sit down with someone in their 80s and ask them about Ireland in the 40s and 50s. Ask them about Irish people. About farming families and business families and social politics.
The amount of posters applying 21st century sensibilities to an era that may as well be 600 years ago as 60 is ridiculous.

Yeah, because being horrified by history is such a new development.

mickstupp · 07-03-2017 10:09PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed. It would seem that as many today are as quick to pass judgement on others, as the very same people of 60 years ago that they are criticising.
People like to indulge in a little cheap sense of superiority.

I would think that anyone who didn't treat women and children the way they did really is superior. We are better human beings. It's not a cheap sense of superiority, it's knowing that we're not disgusting callous cruel and inhumane animals.

smurgen · 07-03-2017 10:11PM

infogiver wrote: »

I think reading this thread that it would be a very good idea if anyone who hasn't already, sit down with someone in their 80s and ask them about Ireland in the 40s and 50s. Ask them about Irish people. About farming families and business families and social politics.
The amount of posters applying 21st century sensibilities to an era that may as well be 600 years ago as 60 is ridiculous.

Hold on a second.that's all very good but these religious orders were given funding to provide food,healthcare,clothing and education to these kids by the state.they set themselves up as the only game in town to be qualified to look after unmarried women and children and the goverent funded them.so tell me, how were the mortality rates so high? How did they mass such large profits to purchase land and buildings using state earned contracts?

Daisy78 · 07-03-2017 10:12PM

infogiver wrote: »

I think reading this thread that it would be a very good idea if anyone who hasn't already, sit down with someone in their 80s and ask them about Ireland in the 40s and 50s. Ask them about Irish people. About farming families and business families and social politics.
The amount of posters applying 21st century sensibilities to an era that may as well be 600 years ago as 60 is ridiculous.

Even if you accept that it was a difficult situation for a young woman to find herself in with little recourse for her family but to send her to a home there is no excuse for the mistreatment handed out to them or their children by the religious order. Anyone who went to school in a convent will know that the nuns pride themselves on turning out well groomed educated young women who can make their way in the world, so why not show the same charity to those women who needed support in what was a difficult time.Why did they treat those women differently from any other under their care?

infogiver · 07-03-2017 10:13PM

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

No better nor worse than us? I'm a hell of a lot better than those b*tches and b*st*rds who tortured women and children and I will condemn, judge and detest every last one of the hungry animals who could treat another human being, babies included like they did. I honestly hate and despise every last one of them and anyone who has the coldness to justify what they did.

This is what I'm talking about.
If you weren't alive in 1950 and you can't imagine what life was like then how do you know how you would have behaved?
Do you also hate and despise every single parent who dumped their daughter at the Convent door?
And grandparent who stood by and let it happen?
And aunts and uncles and neighbors and friends?
And the community at large who developed amnesia overnight and apparently completely forgot about a girl who had lived in their midst for all her life until that day?
Do you hate and despise the county councillors elected by the people who organised inspections by the health boards of the institutions but kept them open and kept funding them and thanked the nuns for all their hard work?
You'll have a lot of hating and despising to do if your going to vest your wrath on all the people responsible!

Grandeeod · 07-03-2017 10:14PM

kylith wrote: »

Sorry if I'm coming across like that. I guess I'm just annoyed at Pilly being so vehement about it being a lie that girls were still being sent away without supplying any evidence to support their position.

I can completely understand Pillys viewpoint and initially the evidence regarding homes in the 90s was shakey. Personally I prefer to research it a bit more after hearing points made here and thats what I'm doing. Pilly has nothing to feel bad about. She had a baby in the 90s and didn't experience any suggestion of being sent to a home or even hearing about a home. I have already stated my own experiences between my wife and myself. Seperate issues in 1988 and 1992. Neither of us heard about any homes, nor was it even mentioned. The fact that Homes for single mothers to be, existed in the 90s is a very very sad reflection on our country.

smurgen · 07-03-2017 10:17PM

Daisy78 wrote: »

Even if you accept that it was a difficult situation for a young woman to find herself in with little recourse for her family but to send her to a home there is no excuse for the mistreatment handed out to them or their children by the religious order. Anyone who went to school in a convent will know that the nuns pride themselves on turning out well groomed educated young women who can make their way in the world, so why not show the same charity to those women who needed support in what was a difficult time.Why did they treat those women differently from any other under their care?

How about taking it a step further. Is there any evidence of the nuns raising the alarm about the mortality rates if the children in their care with the state?surely this should have lead to them asking for increased funding from the goverment for each child.

infogiver · 07-03-2017 10:18PM

Daisy78 wrote: »

Even if you accept that it was a difficult situation for a young woman to find herself in with little recourse for her family but to send her to a home there is no excuse for the mistreatment handed out to them or their children by the religious order. Anyone who went to school in a convent will know that the nuns pride themselves on turning out well groomed educated young women who can make their way in the world, so why not show the same charity to those women who needed support in what was a difficult time.Why did they treat those women differently from any other under their care?

I agree with this. They treated them differently because it their eyes (in everyone's eyes it seems or why else did no one shout stop) they had become lesser human beings because they'd had sex when not married and their children were lesser humans because they were illegitimate.
It's unforgivable and if it's proven that they starved those babies when they had enough money to feed them then I'll be the first to put them in the same category as the nazis.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-03-2017 10:18PM

mickstupp wrote: »

we're not disgusting callous cruel and inhumane animals.

Nor were they. Nor were they.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-03-2017 10:19PM

infogiver wrote: »

You'll have a lot of hating and despising to do if your going to vest your wrath on all the people responsible!

There would be nobody left.

infogiver · 07-03-2017 10:22PM

smurgen wrote: »

How about taking it a step further. Is there any evidence of the nuns raising the alarm about the mortality rates if the children in their care with the state?surely this should have lead to them asking for increased funding from the goverment for each child.

The coco doled out the cash.
There's plenty of local newspaper reports from the time of council meetings where one councillor would call for a cut to per head funding for the mother and baby "home" (what a joke) and another councillor would disagree.
People were sitting at home reading the local paper reading all this and nobody ever wondered what the hell was going on.

cactusgal · 07-03-2017 10:23PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Nor were they. Nor were they.

How were they not? Genuine question.

I'm from the USA, from a former slave state. Under your brand of thinking, we should pat ourselves on the back and say that slavery was OK because it was a different time.

Spoiler: it wasn't.

beauf · 07-03-2017 10:23PM

infogiver wrote: »

... if it's proven that they starved those babies when they had enough money to feed them....

It would be interesting to know the money they were paid. Also the numbers who passed through. By all accounts they were very overcrowded places.

eviltwin · 07-03-2017 10:24PM

Grandeeod wrote: »

I can completely understand Pillys viewpoint and initially the evidence regarding homes in the 90s was shakey. Personally I prefer to research it a bit more after hearing points made here and thats what I'm doing. Pilly has nothing to feel bad about. She had a baby in the 90s and didn't experience any suggestion of being sent to a home or even hearing about a home. I have already stated my own experiences between my wife and myself. Seperate issues in 1988 and 1992. Neither of us heard about any homes, nor was it even mentioned. The fact that Homes for single mothers to be, existed in the 90s is a very very sad reflection on our country.

And then there are those of us who had babies in the 90's who weren't supported. I've no doubt in my mind many girls were sent off in those days to have their children in secret. I know from my own experience how much pure disgust there was at unwed mothers. I don't believe these girls had to live in poor conditions doing manual work but I absolutely believe there were places they could go where they could put the baby up for adoption.

please helpThank YOU · 07-03-2017 10:24PM

infogiver wrote: »

I think reading this thread that it would be a very good idea if anyone who hasn't already, sit down with someone in their 80s and ask them about Ireland in the 40s and 50s. Ask them about Irish people. About farming families and business families and social politics.
The amount of posters applying 21st century sensibilities to an era that may as well be 600 years ago as 60 is ridiculous.

So Ireland Has got better since 60 years ago with social politics ?

sondagefaux · 07-03-2017 10:25PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

But by the standards of the time, society chose not to prosecute, whatever the letter of the law.

In most cases, 'society' did not know because the alleged criminals and the state actively colluded to cover up.

The fact that state actors (including Gardai, prosecutors, judges etc) did not act does not mean that the laws of the time weren't broken.

If someone is still alive today, and if there is sufficient evidence still available, the state may still prosecute those crimes that are not time-barred, including crimes allegedly committed by Gardai, judges etc who failed to uphold the law and may have committed crimes in so doing.

For example, a garda who had been presented with credible evidence that a child died because of criminal neglect but failed to investigate because clergy might have been held responsible may himself have committed a crime.

We shouldn't compound the crimes of the past by failing to investigate and prosecute them now if we have the means to do so.

Not only are we failing to provide justice to the victims of those crimes, we are failing to implement our present constitutional law, dating from 1937, which requires the state to "protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person ... of every citizen"

This is from the Irish constitution as enacted originally:

Article 40 (continued)
3 1° the state guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and
vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° the state shall, in particular, by its laws protect
as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of
injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good
name, and property rights of every citizen.

These provisions have been in force from the adoption of the constitution and remain in force now.

The state has constitutional obligations "to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen".

It also has constitutional obligations to "protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person ... of every citizen".

Failure to do so is a breach of the constitutional rights of citizens and an abrogation of the state's constitutional obligations.

You cannot simply dismiss these rights and obligations - they must be enforced no matter how inconvenient it may be.

If they are not enforced then Ireland can no longer claim to be a democratic state which respects the rule of law.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Today we would prosecute - hence the strong tone of many here. A retrospective moving of the goal posts is the hypocrisy and injustice to those of that era.

There is nothing retrospective, nothing that implies shifting of goal posts, about expecting the state to respect constitutional rights granted to citizens and constitutional obligations imposed on the state in the 1930s.

The people of Ireland chose to give themselves constitutional rights in the 1930s, and chose to impose constitutional obligations on the state in the 1930s, rights which were often not upheld.

Judging people in the light of the rights and obligations set out in the state's constitution, adopted by popular referendum in 1937, is not hypocrisy and injustice to those of that era. It is a perfectly fair and just way of judging their actions by the standards they set for themselves.

infogiver · 07-03-2017 10:28PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So Ireland Has got better since 60 years ago with social politics ?

Well we voted for SSM.
And nobody passes a bit of heed really on marriage break ups or lone parents (well not in public).
And it's almost impossible to get locked up for any crime at all.
I just don't know

nhunter100 · 07-03-2017 10:30PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

Nor were they. Nor were they.

The evidence seems to contradict your claim.

kylith · 07-03-2017 10:30PM

Grandeeod wrote: »

I can completely understand Pillys viewpoint and initially the evidence regarding homes in the 90s was shakey. Personally I prefer to research it a bit more after hearing points made here and thats what I'm doing. Pilly has nothing to feel bad about. She had a baby in the 90s and didn't experience any suggestion of being sent to a home or even hearing about a home. I have already stated my own experiences between my wife and myself. Seperate issues in 1988 and 1992. Neither of us heard about any homes, nor was it even mentioned. The fact that Homes for single mothers to be, existed in the 90s is a very very sad reflection on our country.

It's understandable to be sceptical, but not to be so vehement about it being a blatant lie just because one's own experience was different. I did my leaving in 2000 and was in school with a girl who got pregnant in 5th year. There was some surprise in the locality that her parents "let" her keep it.

I've had family members try to argue with me that because they know someone who got a school place without baptising their child that no such discrimination happens, when it absolutely does.

It's always good to remember that just because it doesn't happen here, or doesn't happen to you, that that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Tramore Tilly · 07-03-2017 10:37PM

infogiver wrote: »

This is what I'm talking about.
If you weren't alive in 1950 and you can't imagine what life was like then how do you know how you would have behaved?
Do you also hate and despise every single parent who dumped their daughter at the Convent door?
And grandparent who stood by and let it happen?
And aunts and uncles and neighbors and friends?
And the community at large who developed amnesia overnight and apparently completely forgot about a girl who had lived in their midst for all her life until that day?
Do you hate and despise the county councillors elected by the people who organised inspections by the health boards of the institutions but kept them open and kept funding them and thanked the nuns for all their hard work?
You'll have a lot of hating and despising to do if your going to vest your wrath on all the people responsible!

You think if I lived in the 1950s I would be happy that women were being beaten up and dead babies dumped in sewers? You think the time line of my existence has a bearing on the atrocities carried out? Do you feel the same about WW2 Concentration Camps? Do you feel the same about US segregation? They lived in different times so their crimes are not for us to judge? What those nuns did in those homes is inexcusable regardless of the era. They were sick cruel animals.

please helpThank YOU · 07-03-2017 10:38PM

IRELAND IS A KIP WHAT THE DID TO THEM POOR UNMARRIED MOTHERS WITH BABIES IN TUAM GALWAY JUST A KIP HOPE THEM MOTHERS AND BABIES HAUNT IRELAND FOR THIS INJUSTICE WE ALL DID THIS TO THEM NO ONE SPOKE UP FOR THEM WE ARE ALL TO BLAME

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-03-2017 10:38PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

The evidence seems to contradict your claim.

Quite the contrary. The evidence is that people do not fundamentally change or evolve in a couple of generations, whether in their level of cruelty, callousness, or inhumanity. But that cultural and societal norms do.
The people are the same. People today are just as capable of behaving in the same way.

pilly · 07-03-2017 10:38PM

eviltwin wrote:

And then there are those of us who had babies in the 90's who weren't supported. I've no doubt in my mind many girls were sent off in those days to have their children in secret. I know from my own experience how much pure disgust there was at unwed mothers. I don't believe these girls had to live in poor conditions doing manual work but I absolutely believe there were places they could go where they could put the baby up for adoption.

I had my child in 1988 and believe me didn't have any family support.

jameorahiely · 07-03-2017 10:41PM

beauf wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the money they were paid. Also the numbers who passed through. By all accounts they were very overcrowded places.

Being overcrowded would have allowed measles etc to spread quicker through the population within the homes.

Tramore Tilly · 07-03-2017 10:42PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Quite the contrary. The evidence is that people do not fundamentally change or evolve in a couple of generations, whether in their level of cruelty, callousness, or inhumanity. But that cultural and societal norms do.
The people are the same. People today are just as capable of behaving in the same way.

Of course people today are capable of behaving the same way. It doesn't make what DID happen any more acceptable, excusable, or palatable nor does it even come close to explaining why all the abuses happened.

Esel · 07-03-2017 10:45PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

... The fact that state actors (including Gardai, prosecutors, judges etc) did not act does not mean that the laws of the time weren't broken....

For example, a garda who had been presented with credible evidence that a child died because of criminal neglect but failed to investigate because clergy might have been held responsible may himself have committed a crime....

When a girl or woman managed to escape from one of these hellholes but were unlucky enough to meet the Garda Síochána, they were generally transported back to the 'home'.

But that's all OK, because that was then and this is now.

Noveight · 07-03-2017 10:49PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

IRELAND IS A KIP

Not, it's not.

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

WE ARE ALL TO BLAME

No, we're not.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-03-2017 10:50PM

cactusgal wrote: »

How were they not? Genuine question.

I'm from the USA, from a former slave state. Under your brand of thinking, we should pat ourselves on the back and say that slavery was OK because it was a different time.

Spoiler: it wasn't.

The comparison is a good one, and of course slavery isnt OK from our view today.
But in the case of the USA of a century and a half ago, it was to many many people, and not to many many others. This synchronous clash of the two strongly held yet opposing views, coming from a very particular situation of various cultures and rapid development of an inhomogeneous nation was integral to a very serious war. It was a clash of two coexisting viewpoints, rather then the gradual societal change that this thread is considering. People supposedly of the same nation were judging each other - and that is valid where they are contemporaries trying to forge a united country. What is not, is those from one era, retrospectively judging those of a previous one that they were not or are not part of.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments