"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Colser · 17-03-2017 07:05AM

Watching the rte news last night and the irony would make you sick...the burial of a "religious"man and all it entailed and then the vigil for the babies...sickening.

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 07:06AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why then would it be that we should sweep under the carpet the treatment of these poor children suffered at the hands of women who were meant to be Christian examples in the Community?
And I would say that your opinion does matter in so far as you have been trying to deflect the options of others on this forum...all entitled to an opinion no matter how abrasive.

Heaves a great sigh.. It is very, very hard for those who have trusted the "powers that be" to take in all this. It really is. It is so utterly shocking and really eats at the very foundations of society.

Many countries have turned to violent overthrowings and rebellion.

volchitsa · 17-03-2017 09:52AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah the babies would no grudge that! That was what they would have had,

Yes, I think a children's playground is a far better memorial to those poor babies and children than any cold marble plaque could ever be.

And it would be the utmost hypocrisy after all these years to "give" them a regular funeral and turn the place into a graveyard at this stage : taking a children's playground away from them in order to make adults feel a bit better? How would that change what happened? It would only leave other children's daily lives a little bit poorer, nothing else.

Annasopra · 17-03-2017 10:14AM

kbannon wrote: »

Anyhow, maybe you forgot but do you want to answer my query on how you have helped the vulnerable in society currently or is your silence simply because I'm right?

Seriously? People want to have a genuine discussion and all you can do is lash out at them and tell them their concern is fake and why haven't they actually done something about their concerns? Seriously?

What have you ever done in this instance apart from lashing out judgementally at anyone and everyone who disagrees with you?

BattyInNZ · 17-03-2017 10:15AM

First off - I'm in no way defending any religious organisation and what they're responsible for in this country.

What I've found sickening in all of this gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands is the fact that it was parents who did this to their children. So what if the priest told them they had to? That didn't happen very often. So what if the neighbours would 'talk'? If they hadn't sent them away none of this would have happened.

I was the 'first separated girl in the village' back in the 80s (82 to be exact) because my mother told me to come home if 'that fella ever lays another hand on ye'. My friend's father told her sister 'she'd made her bed and now she'd have to lie in it'. Same situation for both of us but my father put his daughter before the neighbours and the Church.

There were lots of girls I knew who went to places like this and to 'families' for summer work etc.etc. All of it to make sure the neighbours didn't know. It's very easy to put the blame on priests, nuns and the like but the Irish people have to stand up and take the blame too.

Annasopra · 17-03-2017 10:15AM

Sort out the quotes in this thread!!!!!!!!!

infogiver · 17-03-2017 11:08AM

nhunter100 wrote: »

Still defending the good sisters I see, spreading the blame. Keep it up.

Your contributions to this thread are so informative and interesting. Keep it up.
If you badly want a Catholic thrashing thread wherein there are no dissenting voices you should ask a mod.
Otherwise just suck it up.

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 12:01PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, I think a children's playground is a far better memorial to those poor babies and children than any cold marble plaque could ever be.

And it would be the utmost hypocrisy after all these years to "give" them a regular funeral and turn the place into a graveyard at this stage : taking a children's playground away from them in order to make adults feel a bit better? How would that change what happened? It would only leave other children's daily lives a little bit poorer, nothing else.

No, not unless and until the remains are moved. Yes after that. There are disconnected adults and there are survivor adults.

It iS a graveyard already. No choice of that.

Put the playground elsewhere of course.

BattyInNZ · 17-03-2017 01:07PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

Still defending the good sisters I see, spreading the blame. Keep it up.

No - I agree with what that person is saying - where were the parents afterward? All these people who are putting the blame solely on the nuns and priests - do you know that your parents and grandparents were not partly to blame for all of this? Were they ones who sat around the table after Mass on Sunday and tore the neighbourhood to bits? Or did they put their hand out and offer help? To the girl and/or her parents?

I cannot bear the hypocrisy of all this - there's not one person standing up and saying I'm sorry, I shouldn't have talked about this or that family, I shouldn't have made them feel so ashamed they put their daughter into this hellhole, I should have helped!

volchitsa · 17-03-2017 01:24PM

Graces7 wrote: »

No, not unless and until the remains are moved. Yes after that. There are disconnected adults and there are survivor adults.

It iS a graveyard already. No choice of that.

Put the playground elsewhere of course.

It was whatever it is now last month and in 2014 and for years before that.
Not only that, but many people knew or suspected it was there. Was it wrong to play in it in January of this year? So why would it be wrong tomorrow?

I just think that it would be hypocrisy to take away a children's playground now when it's unlikely that another would ever be made available in the name of "respect" for the dead. If we want to respect them then make it a beautiful play ground, dedicated to the children who never had one. And let the order pay for its upkeep.

Anything else is just making today's children pay for what adults did in the past.
IMO of course.

Graces7 · 17-03-2017 01:34PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It was whatever it is now last month and in 2014 and for years before that.
Not only that, but many people knew or suspected it was there. Was it wrong to play in it in January of this year? So why would it be wrong tomorrow?

I just think that it would be hypocrisy to take away a children's playground now when it's unlikely that another would ever be made available in the name of "respect" for the dead. If we want to respect them then make it a beautiful play ground, dedicated to the children who never had one. And let the order pay for its upkeep.

Anything else is just making today's children pay for what adults did in the past.
IMO of course.

Because we know and thus it becomes disrespectful. Dancing on graves?

What a way to bring up children.

Pay? In what way?

Thankfully that decision is not mine or thine. or open to discussion.

infogiver · 17-03-2017 01:58PM

BattyInNZ wrote: »

No - I agree with what that person is saying - where were the parents afterward? All these people who are putting the blame solely on the nuns and priests - do you know that your parents and grandparents were not partly to blame for all of this? Were they ones who sat around the table after Mass on Sunday and tore the neighbourhood to bits? Or did they put their hand out and offer help? To the girl and/or her parents?

I cannot bear the hypocrisy of all this - there's not one person standing up and saying I'm sorry, I shouldn't have talked about this or that family, I shouldn't have made them feel so ashamed they put their daughter into this hellhole, I should have helped!

Your just not allowed to say this. You must strictly stick to the mantra that the entire population was cowed and mesmerised by the priest.
That parents brought their beloved precious daughters to the Convent door under the impression that beyond that door was some kind of Disneyesque utopia (but nobody here can explain why in lots of cases they never came back to collect beloved daughter. Where did they think they'd gone? The moon? Or some kind of 20 year Coronation Street pregnancy?).
There was no whispering campaigns, no nods winks or eye rolling, no sudden awkward silences when you walked into the local PO to buy a stamp, no terror that your other daughters would never get a husband because one of them was a slut, used goods, a tramp.
People want to delude themselves that Irish people were inherently kind and merciful and charitable.
My arse.
If the RCC had never said a word about sex before marriage these girls would still have been dumped somewhere.
It happens in cultures where they've never heard of RCC.
I haven't seen that explained here either.
So on St Patrick's day I'd love if someone could explain to me why beloved precious daughters were either told not to come home again (my own paternal grandmother. She left pregnant with her fella went on to marry him and have 9 children before dying of hard work at 47 without ever seeing either of her parents ever again) or just not collected.
Also how do you explain the expulsions of unmarried pregnant girls in non Christian cultures?

nhunter100 · 17-03-2017 02:12PM

infogiver wrote:

Your contributions to this thread are so informative and interesting. Keep it up. If you badly want a Catholic thrashing thread wherein there are no dissenting voices you should ask a mod. Otherwise just suck it up.

Thanks, where did I mention catholics? Take your time but I would like you to highlight it. The religious orders however were in charge of the homes where significant abuse occurred.

nhunter100 · 17-03-2017 02:16PM

infogiver wrote:

Your just not allowed to say this. You must strictly stick to the mantra that the entire population was cowed and mesmerised by the priest.

Of course you are allowed say what you wish. However you have consistently sought to blame the families of the girls and babies regarding Tuam. Never once attacking the behaviour of the Nuns involved in the running of the home or their treatment of the deceased children. I did ask you before did you condemn what happened in Tuam. You claimed you did. Yet I couldn't find it and you were unwilling to highlight it.

infogiver · 17-03-2017 02:57PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

Of course you are allowed say what you wish. However you have consistently sought to blame the families of the girls and babies regarding Tuam. Never once attacking the behaviour of the Nuns involved in the running of the home or their treatment of the deceased children. I did ask you before did you condemn what happened in Tuam. You claimed you did. Yet I couldn't find it and you were unwilling to highlight it.

You couldn't find it so you want me to go to look for it for you.
When you looked for it this thread was only a few pages long.
Now go and look again. It's simply a question of searching my posts.
I know what I posted and I'm not here to do your bidding.
You've made it clear that you don't accept that anyone but the religious orders and RCC are responsible for the way unmarried mothers were treated in this country. Not one scintilla of blame is to fall on anyone else.
That's fine but you need to stop attacking people who don't agree with you.

nhunter100 · 17-03-2017 03:14PM

infogiver wrote:

You couldn't find it so you want me to go to look for it for you. When you looked for it this thread was only a few pages long. Now go and look again. It's simply a question of searching my posts. I know what I posted and I'm not here to do your bidding. You've made it clear that you don't accept that anyone but the religious orders and RCC are responsible for the way unmarried mothers were treated in this country. Not one scintilla of blame is to fall on anyone else. That's fine but you need to stop attacking people who don't agree with you.

I blame those that carried out the abuse. The families may not have covered themselves in glory, that still did not justify the atrocious behaviour of what the religious orders carried.
Attacking? Disagreeing yes, attacking no. As for your post condemning the behaviour in Tuam I went back to the start of this thread not there that I could find, but you claim you did so be it. No blame to fall on anyone else? Do you know what the thread title is? Yet you seek to blame everyone thereby lessening the blame of the good Bon Secour order.

nhunter100 · 17-03-2017 03:50PM

infogiver wrote:

Do you think people working in the home in 1961 are hiding in the Vatican?

infogiver wrote:

But who forced them to go to the Convent Kylith? You can't escape from the fact that the parents of the pregnant girl brought them to the Convent. My great grandmother gave birth to my grandfather in 1900 and she just kept him at home and reared him because her widowed father loved her more than his concern for his own social standing. Other girls just disappeared from the village only to return a year or so later, having lost weight and on the understanding that they'd gone to Dublin to visit cousins. Some just never came back. If you want us to be able to process this information properly then you have to accept that the whole of Irish society was in total agreement that the proper way to deal with illegitimacy was via the Convent and possibly the laundry. If you try to pretend that nobody realised what was going on behind the gates then your defeating everything

infogiver wrote:

But this "shame" occurred and continues to occur in many parts of the world where there was no religion at all so how do you explain that? There are still African tribes where unattached pregnant girls are just banished out into the wilderness.

Your first 3 posts on this thread. Had some time decided to look again. Yeah no condemnation, deflection and defense though.

Mr.Wemmick · 17-03-2017 05:47PM

The thing is, you simply can not measure what families did and didn’t do back then. Absolutely, there were some nasty people about who cared more for themselves than the disgraced daughter or grandchild they sent away, but equally there were those who were frightened of the Church, of hell and damnation if they didn’t do what the holy father told them to do.

And I am sure you had priests who ran their parishes with an iron fist, horrid bullies, while others were probably kinder men who didn’t really push it on parents to give up their daughters. It takes all sorts of influences in society to pressure people to either make the wrong or the right choice.

You can pick and poke at this for as long as you want, but the obvious problem with this is: the families weren’t in charge of the pregnant women, the births, the babies; they didn’t manage these homes, the nuns did; they didn’t throw dead babies in a pit, the nuns did.

So, follow the crime. Find out what happen, where it happened. Find the truth first, and the rest will follow.

17-03-2017 06:16PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Have a look at the early part of "Sex in a Cold Climate" and "The Magdalene Sisters" also.

The men got away with it every time. NB both films based on real cases. They are or were on line.

Thanks. Both available on youtube, and bookmarked for later viewing.

BattyInNZ wrote: »

First off - I'm in no way defending any religious organisation and what they're responsible for in this country.

What I've found sickening in all of this gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands is the fact that it was parents who did this to their children. So what if the priest told them they had to? That didn't happen very often. So what if the neighbours would 'talk'? If they hadn't sent them away none of this would have happened.

I was the 'first separated girl in the village' back in the 80s (82 to be exact) because my mother told me to come home if 'that fella ever lays another hand on ye'. My friend's father told her sister 'she'd made her bed and now she'd have to lie in it'. Same situation for both of us but my father put his daughter before the neighbours and the Church.

There were lots of girls I knew who went to places like this and to 'families' for summer work etc.etc. All of it to make sure the neighbours didn't know. It's very easy to put the blame on priests, nuns and the like but the Irish people have to stand up and take the blame too.

Sadly, you're right, there were parents like that.

Having said that, the question then has to be asked "What made them like that?".

The sad thing is, single parenthood has been frowned on in pretty much every culture for thousands of years.

The first mother and baby home was set up in London in the 1700s, believe it or not.

I'm not excusing the behaviour of these parents. I find it dreadful. Incomprehensible, even.

But they were reared with the belief that this was the way to behave - and a lot of people never questioned it.

I suppose maybe what I'm saying is that you can't just judge every parent the same way.
There were degrees of wrongness.

So, for example - well off parents, who shipped their daughters off to remain "respectable" - no excuse.

Widow, with half a dozen children, struggling to make ends meet, no widows pension, or support of any kind at the time, trying to keep her children from being put it the County home - easier to persuade that she didn't need another mouth to feed, I think?

Parents who thought "To hell with the lot of them!", and raised their Grandchild?

They were the ones who knew what Christianity was...

sondagefaux · 17-03-2017 06:57PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

The thing is, you simply can not measure what families did and didn’t do back then. Absolutely, there were some nasty people about who cared more for themselves than the disgraced daughter or grandchild they sent away, but equally there were those who were frightened of the Church, of hell and damnation if they didn’t do what the holy father told them to do.

And I am sure you had priests who ran their parishes with an iron fist, horrid bullies, while others were probably kinder men who didn’t really push it on parents to give up their daughters. It takes all sorts of influences in society to pressure people to either make the wrong or the right choice.

You can pick and poke at this for as long as you want, but the obvious problem with this is: the families weren’t in charge of the pregnant women, the births, the babies; they didn’t manage these homes, the nuns did; they didn’t throw dead babies in a pit, the nuns did.

So, follow the crime. Find out what happen, where it happened. Find the truth first, and the rest will follow.

Well said.

As I said before, if I punch you in the face I am responsible.

The people who abused and neglected mothers and infants in their care are responsible for that abuse and neglect.

There's no need to debate that simple fact.

Flam1n1us · 18-03-2017 12:35AM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

The thing is, you simply can not measure what families did and didn’t do back then. Absolutely, there were some nasty people about who cared more for themselves than the disgraced daughter or grandchild they sent away, but equally there were those who were frightened of the Church, of hell and damnation if they didn’t do what the holy father told them to do.

And I am sure you had priests who ran their parishes with an iron fist, horrid bullies, while others were probably kinder men who didn’t really push it on parents to give up their daughters. It takes all sorts of influences in society to pressure people to either make the wrong or the right choice.

You can pick and poke at this for as long as you want, but the obvious problem with this is: the families weren’t in charge of the pregnant women, the births, the babies; they didn’t manage these homes, the nuns did; they didn’t throw dead babies in a pit, the nuns did.

So, follow the crime. Find out what happen, where it happened. Find the truth first, and the rest will follow.

mr wemmick completely agree.

The RCC had absolute control over 'morality' since the foundation of the state. Afaik over 92% of the population were RC, schools taught kids to be obedient & not question authority, nuns & priests were in charge & most adults went along with that - who would they complain to anyway?

for younger readers who grew up in a different era, everything was a 'sin' in those times - a venial sin was bad enough but a mortal sin meant hell & eternal damnation so was to be avoided at all costs. sex before marriage was a mortal sin, in the same league as the worst civil crime.

Irish family life revolved around the RCC, with ceremonies from birth to death & all in between.. new mothers had to be 'churched' six weeks after birth so the 'sin' of childbirth was washed away but that was only available to married mothers..??.! Babies were born with original 'sin' that could only be removed by baptism. Kids of 7/8 had to have confession to remove 'sins' before they make the first communion #**

we were constantly told we were all sinners by the nuns, brothers & priests & hell was the definite end for sinners unless we repented... what a load of rubbish,,

The RCC had people scared stiff so its no surprise that unmarried girls & their families panicked when unwed girls fell pregnant. don't believe that the girls were not denounced from the pulpit - ok their name wasn't mentioned but the sermon would be clear about sin, sex & damnation.
In my day most people were not even aware that you could be married anywhere other than in the church, & people thought annulments were from the church. RC schools made sure people were kept in the dark.

I find it curious that in 1916 there was only 116 civil marriages out of a total of 15207 yet in 2014 it jumped to 6167 out of 22045. people are better educated these days & may not realise how different Irish society was in the 60/70's

unmarried women and their babies were treated badly by society and the RCC set the social & moral tone up until very recently. the way they treated those they were supposed to look after such as un-wed women & their babies plus young people who were abused is absolutely shameful.
its no surprise to me that so many Irish people have drifted from the RCC. who would want to be part of it??

Graces7 · 18-03-2017 01:12PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thanks, where did I mention catholics? Take your time but I would like you to highlight it. The religious orders however were in charge of the homes where significant abuse occurred.

Bethany was run by the Church of Ireland

Graces7 · 18-03-2017 01:15PM

Flam1n1us wrote: »

mr wemmick completely agree.

The RCC had absolute control over 'morality' since the foundation of the state. Afaik over 92% of the population were RC, schools taught kids to be obedient & not question authority, nuns & priests were in charge & most adults went along with that - who would they complain to anyway?

for younger readers who grew up in a different era, everything was a 'sin' in those times - a venial sin was bad enough but a mortal sin meant hell & eternal damnation so was to be avoided at all costs. sex before marriage was a mortal sin, in the same league as the worst civil crime.

Irish family life revolved around the RCC, with ceremonies from birth to death & all in between.. new mothers had to be 'churched' six weeks after birth so the 'sin' of childbirth was washed away but that was only available to married mothers..??.! Babies were born with original 'sin' that could only be removed by baptism. Kids of 7/8 had to have confession to remove 'sins' before they make the first communion #**

we were constantly told we were all sinners by the nuns, brothers & priests & hell was the definite end for sinners unless we repented... what a load of rubbish,,

The RCC had people scared stiff so its no surprise that unmarried girls & their families panicked when unwed girls fell pregnant. don't believe that the girls were not denounced from the pulpit - ok their name wasn't mentioned but the sermon would be clear about sin, sex & damnation.
In my day most people were not even aware that you could be married anywhere other than in the church, & people thought annulments were from the church. RC schools made sure people were kept in the dark.

I find it curious that in 1916 there was only 116 civil marriages out of a total of 15207 yet in 2014 it jumped to 6167 out of 22045. people are better educated these days & may not realise how different Irish society was in the 60/70's

unmarried women and their babies were treated badly by society and the RCC set the social & moral tone up until very recently. the way they treated those they were supposed to look after such as un-wed women & their babies plus young people who were abused is absolutely shameful.
its no surprise to me that so many Irish people have drifted from the RCC. who would want to be part of it??

This is a simplistic distortion.

Electric Sheep · 18-03-2017 06:18PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Flam1n1us wrote: »

mr wemmick completely agree.

The RCC had absolute control over 'morality' since the foundation of the state. Afaik over 92% of the population were RC, schools taught kids to be obedient & not question authority, nuns & priests were in charge & most adults went along with that - who would they complain to anyway?

for younger readers who grew up in a different era, everything was a 'sin' in those times - a venial sin was bad enough but a mortal sin meant hell & eternal damnation so was to be avoided at all costs. sex before marriage was a mortal sin, in the same league as the worst civil crime.

Irish family life revolved around the RCC, with ceremonies from birth to death & all in between.. new mothers had to be 'churched' six weeks after birth so the 'sin' of childbirth was washed away but that was only available to married mothers..??.! Babies were born with original 'sin' that could only be removed by baptism. Kids of 7/8 had to have confession to remove 'sins' before they make the first communion #**

we were constantly told we were all sinners by the nuns, brothers & priests & hell was the definite end for sinners unless we repented... what a load of rubbish,,

The RCC had people scared stiff so its no surprise that unmarried girls & their families panicked when unwed girls fell pregnant. don't believe that the girls were not denounced from the pulpit - ok their name wasn't mentioned but the sermon would be clear about sin, sex & damnation.
In my day most people were not even aware that you could be married anywhere other than in the church, & people thought annulments were from the church. RC schools made sure people were kept in the dark.

I find it curious that in 1916 there was only 116 civil marriages out of a total of 15207 yet in 2014 it jumped to 6167 out of 22045. people are better educated these days & may not realise how different Irish society was in the 60/70's

unmarried women and their babies were treated badly by society and the RCC set the social & moral tone up until very recently. the way they treated those they were supposed to look after such as un-wed women & their babies plus young people who were abused is absolutely shameful.
its no surprise to me that so many Irish people have drifted from the RCC. who would want to be part of it??

This is a simplistic distortion.

So are most of the posts on this thread.

volchitsa · 18-03-2017 06:44PM

Graces7 wrote: »

This is a simplistic distortion.

It may well be, but it's very recognizably the form of Catholicism that was inculcated in people right up to Vatican 2. The simplistic distortion is largely due to the Catholic church in Ireland abusing its quasi monopoly of public life in order to endure it had as much temporal power as was possible, and a great deal more than was suitable for a religious organization.

Not that it's alone in wishing to do that, most religions do, or would if they could. But it takes certain combinations of circumstances for that to be possible, and Ireland after independence fitted into some of those rather neatly.

Goldengirl · 18-03-2017 10:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Esel · 19-03-2017 05:55AM

Graces7 wrote: »

This is a simplistic distortion.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

So are most of the posts on this thread.

Both of these 'ripostes' need much more cowbell - otherwise they mean nothing.

Graces7 · 19-03-2017 06:10AM

volchitsa wrote: »

It may well be, but it's very recognizably the form of Catholicism that was inculcated in people right up to Vatican 2. The simplistic distortion is largely due to the Catholic church in Ireland abusing its quasi monopoly of public life in order to endure it had as much temporal power as was possible, and a great deal more than was suitable for a religious organization.

Not that it's alone in wishing to do that, most religions do, or would if they could. But it takes certain combinations of circumstances for that to be possible, and Ireland after independence fitted into some of those rather neatly.

Neat but of course not what I meant. :rolleyes: As I think you know.

The hardest part for many re all this is the very real good the Sisters did for many at the same time as this was going on ..

Calling at every back street house every week; if there was an old one sick they would clean and cook and make sure the neighbours helped out .. and that was from someone badly treated by them.

And many still say what a great education they had from the Sisters...I hear that a lot.

There is no black and white, only shades of grey.

So yes, simplistic distortion still applies.

volchitsa · 19-03-2017 08:14AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Neat but of course not what I meant. :rolleyes: As I think you know.

The hardest part for many re all this is the very real good the Sisters did for many at the same time as this was going on ..

Calling at every back street house every week; if there was an old one sick they would clean and cook and make sure the neighbours helped out .. and that was from someone badly treated by them.

And many still say what a great education they had from the Sisters...I hear that a lot.

There is no black and white, only shades of grey.

So yes, simplistic distortion still applies.

I have no memory of that happening, nor even heard tell of it. Can you tell me where and when that was a regular occurrence?

And are you really saying that in working class areas "old ones" would be left without help when sick if the nuns hadn't come around and made people do it? That's definitely not my memory of where I grew up. Priests and nuns were honored visitors, they got tea and cake, and I never saw any of them rolling their sleeves up and getting stuck in to the work that needed doing. Never.

The neighbours, OTOH - actually I find your description of things offensive because it insults ordinary people as though they wouldn't help their neighbours without being instructed to by nuns.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 19-03-2017 08:23AM

Graces7 wrote: »

The hardest part for many re all this is the very real good the Sisters did for many at the same time as this was going on ..

Calling at every back street house every week; if there was an old one sick they would clean and cook and make sure the neighbours helped out .. and that was from someone badly treated by them.

Graces, were you in the country at that time? Did you see this in Ireland for yourself? Or is this all anecdotal? Because it's nothing like how it was around here in the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments