Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Spring Onion

marienbad wrote: »

Instead we had a drip drip for years with victims goodnames being smeared and the RCC hiding behind a battery of lawyers all to protect their monetary interest. That is what is destroying the Church.

Nixon had it right- it is the cover-up and not the crime that pulls the house down.

Spot on. And the Roman church seems to have learned nothing about handling abuse scandals over the last 10 years. They even kept Sean Brady in charge during all that time.

jill_valentine

Vivisectus wrote: »

I wonder how you would feel if the results turned out to be pretty damning.

Indeed. There is far worse to come to light yet, too.

Cabaal

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indeed. There is far worse to come to light yet, too.

We'll be hearing about mistreated people and sex abuse cases linked to the church for many many decades to come

Akrasia

jank wrote: »

Afghanistan 2014 vs Ireland 1943. Do we have stats for both around 1943 as that is the true comparison if one was fair. Even fairer still would be a similar institution where unwanted babies were born.
By the way I don't want to start a 'who's worse us or them' argument here. I was just relating to the fact that it was known that there was a very very high mortality rate in Bessborough around this time as reported some months back due to unhygienic conditions and lack of training, which of course was appalling and tragic for those concerned.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/extraordinary-doctor-stood-up-to-clergy-and-closed-home-30344924.html

It is of course good to have more facts come to light however, as I already mentioned the way this whole thing is reported leaves a lot to be desired, just look at the title of the link that was posted. Hugely misleading and done on purpose to whip it up.

Afghanistan in 1950 had an infant mortality rate of 27.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

No country in the world in the 1950s had infant morality greater than about 30%

Besborough had an infant morality of 68%

An absolutely shocking, appalling, pathetic, disgusting death rate. And the cause of death? Neglect. Callous indifference. The culture there at the time must have been horrific. They must have genuinely seen those babies as sub human.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

The best way to correct any distortion is to release any and all records and give untrammelled access to the media and authorities.

Although a nice 'idea' you often find on the internet it falls on the first hurdle. It would be illegal on both the data protection act and under current adoption legislation. I for example would not want my own personal records uploaded to the internet or handed over to some intern or journalist student where anyone could have a look at them. I imagine many other birth mothers and people who were adopted may feel the same as consent MUST be sought from both if contact is initiated between two parties.

In this case if records were made public (cause that is what handing data over to the media is) one could track the other down without consent which is grossly unfair on the other member involved. This is what would happen if the media were given access to all these records and ll to satisfy a whim. Remember I too have rights under the constitution

Of course you are ignoring the reality of today that most of these records have been handed over to the HSE.

However, I would welcome an independent investigation who had judicial powers to view these records as they would have to work in a framework of protecting identities involved. It would take time and money but what would come out would be the raw unfettered truth.

jank

Again - what we can see from recorded testimonies that are already available that those homes were often pretty darn awful. That has nothing to do with media slant.

Where did I challenge those testimonies?

What I did challenge was the headline in the Irish Examiner in regards the latest story. It was blatant in what it was trying to do, something no one has actually disagree with oddly, yet easier to bang on about motives and secondary passive conclusions.

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

No country in the world in the 1950s had infant morality greater than about 30%

Neither did Ireland, yet you are comparing a country or a nation state with a mother and baby home.

Akrasia wrote: »

Besborough had an infant morality of 68%

Over its entire history?

Akrasia

jank wrote: »

Neither did Ireland, yet you are comparing a country or a nation state with a mother and baby home.


Over its entire history?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the infant mortality rate at Besborough was anywhere even resembling an acceptable level?

These children died of deprivation. How many nuns starved to death during this time?

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to argue that the infant mortality rate at Besborough was anywhere even resembling an acceptable level?

These children died of deprivation. How many nuns starved to death during this time?

No, did I ever say it was acceptable?

Care to answer the question?

marienbad

jank wrote: »

No, did I ever say it was acceptable?

Care to answer the question?

Does it matter ? The death rate in these kind of homes was outrageous,How did it happen .

That is all that matters.

Is this the much vaunted republic where all are cherished equally. It makes you wonder at our priorities .

Akrasia

jank wrote: »

No, did I ever say it was acceptable?

Care to answer the question?

From the reports available, the infant mortality rate seemed to hover around the 50% and above with at least 2 years higher than 60%

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Where did I challenge those testimonies?

What I did challenge was the headline in the Irish Examiner in regards the latest story. It was blatant in what it was trying to do, something no one has actually disagree with oddly, yet easier to bang on about motives and secondary passive conclusions.

Next time a pedophile is described as a monster, will you protest in the same way?

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Neither did Ireland, yet you are comparing a country or a nation state with a mother and baby home.


Over its entire history?

Indeed. Over it's entire history, Bergen-Belsen did not have a higher death rate than Copenhagen. So it is unfair to use statistics from one part of Bergen-Belsen during a specific time in the 1940's and then use the statistics for Copenhagen to show that one place had a far better survival chance than the other.

That stands to reason.

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

From the reports available, the infant mortality rate seemed to hover around the 50% and above with at least 2 years higher than 60%

50% over its entire history? Which report is this.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Neither did Ireland, yet you are comparing a country or a nation state with a mother and baby home.


Over its entire history?

If it was for one year, it was too much and too long. For somebody not defending them, you seem very defensive.

lazygal

One death from neglect is too many. One death from poor care is too many.

Spring Onion

Vivisectus wrote: »

Next time a pedophile is described as a monster, will you protest in the same way?

Jank only answers the questions when he can put a smokescreen around the answer. He is essentially a troll.

marienbad

Spring Onion wrote: »

Jank only answers the questions when he can put a smokescreen around the answer. He is essentially a troll.

I think not.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

If it was for one year, it was too much and too long.

That does not answer my question.

Dades

Spring Onion wrote: »

Jank only answers the questions when he can put a smokescreen around the answer. He is essentially a troll.

If you have an issue with a post or a poster, report them. Otherwise leave the accusations out.

robindch

Mod:

Spring Onion wrote: »

[...] a troll.

That's a judgement the mods will make and if it's made, the mods will take appropriate action.

aloyisious

An opinion-piece from Wed's irish Times

http://iti.ms/1tIWet0

jank

aloyisious wrote: »

An opinion-piece from Wed's irish Times

http://iti.ms/1tIWet0

I acknowledge that its an opinion piece but author is wrong in its primary point. Mother and baby homes were not a symptom of the civil war (and tbh the article barely touches the subject, its just glued on for effect), it was a symptom of a society which much like the rest of the western world at the time regarded children born outside marriage and women who bore them as a blemish and stain against the family from where the woman came from.

Do people honestly think that this problem came from nowhere in 1922-23? Where do you think unwanted babies where born in the 19th century and early 20th century?

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

I acknowledge that its an opinion piece but author is wrong in its primary point. Mother and baby homes were not a symptom of the civil war (and tbh the article barely touches the subject, its just glued on for effect), it was a symptom of a society which much like the rest of the western world at the time regarded children born outside marriage and women who bore them as a blemish and stain against the family from where the woman came from.

A symptom of Western society? I think you'll find is very much a symptom of the Christian based religion and its negative view towards all women.

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

A symptom of Western society? I think you'll find is very much a symptom of the Christian based religion and its negative view towards all women.

How were women treated in antiquity in the west all well before christianity i.e. Greece?
How are women treated in the east in places like India, Pakistan even China.

Women have generally gotten the ****ty end of the stick, regardless of christianity or even religion. The state of atheist China regards women as lesser, one just has to look at their one child policy to confirm this. But sure blame 'christianity' makes it all simple in ones head.

Having a child outside of marriage has negative connotations all over the world, regardless of religion, you don't even argue that basic point.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

How were women treated in antiquity in the west all well before christianity i.e. Greece?
How are women treated in the east in places like India, Pakistan even China.

Women have generally gotten the ****ty end of the stick, regardless of christianity or even religion. The state of atheist China regards women as lesser, one just has to look at their one child policy to confirm this. But sure blame 'christianity' makes it all simple in ones head.

Having a child outside of marriage has negative connotations all over the world, regardless of religion, you don't even argue that basic point.

Values are judged by the society around you and the secular West has moved on . So there is little point in comparing us to India or China or 2000 years ago.

You wouldn't use that measure for our health services or literacy rates etc.
Compare like with like.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

I acknowledge that its an opinion piece but author is wrong in its primary point. Mother and baby homes were not a symptom of the civil war (and tbh the article barely touches the subject, its just glued on for effect), it was a symptom of a society which much like the rest of the western world at the time regarded children born outside marriage and women who bore them as a blemish and stain against the family from where the woman came from.

Do people honestly think that this problem came from nowhere in 1922-23? Where do you think unwanted babies where born in the 19th century and early 20th century?

I think the strong Nationalist sentiments of post-revolution Ireland, which often conflated Catholicism with Nationalistic "Irishness", created the circumstances that made such an atavistic throwback to the nineteenth century as the mother and baby homes possible.

While the rest of Europe was liberalizing divorce laws, paternity laws, abortion legislation, decriminalizing homosexuality and generally legislating to match the practical sexual mores of the times, Ireland did none of these things, although in fairness they were quicker than most to include universal suffrage.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Values are judged by the society around you and the secular West has moved on . So there is little point in comparing us to India or China or 2000 years ago.

You wouldn't use that measure for our health services or literacy rates etc.
Compare like with like.

You missed the primary point of my post. Cabaal argued the the Mother and Baby homes in Ireland and the west as ultimately seeded in Christainity.

very much a symptom of the Christian based religion

However, a quick glance at the non-Christian world will see similar attitudes to women extended there. Therefore it can be safely concluded that this attitude doesn't have its seed in Christianity. This idea has been an accepted value of most of not all societies long before monotheistic religion's of the west emerged. Of course religion add their own flavor to the pie, no disputing that.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

You missed the primary point of my post. Cabaal argued the the Mother and Baby homes in Ireland and the west as ultimately seeded in Christainity.



However, a quick glance at the non-Christian world will see similar attitudes to women extended there. Therefore it can be safely concluded that this attitude doesn't have its seed in Christianity. This idea has been an accepted value of most of not all societies long before monotheistic religion's of the west emerged. Of course religion add their own flavor to the pie, no disputing that.

It is simply undeniable that a particularly Irish Catholic Church ethos has had a profound and unique effect on our society since day I

It is laughable the situations we got and get ourselves into , contraception was only legalised in 1980 and then only to married couples and only with a prescription from a pharmacy ! This despite a Supreme Court ruling some 7 years earlier saying they were legal to use but not to sell .

Fear of and a wish to control sexuality, and particularly women's sexuality has been a cornerstone of Church and State policy unlike any other Western Nation

aloyisious

jank wrote: »

You missed the primary point of my post. Cabaal argued the the Mother and Baby homes in Ireland and the west as ultimately seeded in Christainity.



However, a quick glance at the non-Christian world will see similar attitudes to women extended there. Therefore it can be safely concluded that this attitude doesn't have its seed in Christianity. This idea has been an accepted value of most of not all societies long before monotheistic religion's of the west emerged. Of course religion add their own flavor to the pie, no disputing that.

It's an inescapable fact that when Ireland (south) became a free state, and later a republic, that the new Gov't was based on the Christian ethos, and that the Govt's (regardless of party-affiliation) relied/allowed both of the Christian churches to take up the slack with regard to what it didn't/wouldn't/couldn't handle what it saw as troublesome: the fact that girls and women were pregnant outside wedlock and likely to have babies, with side effects on men and both parents families. It's inescapable that both churches failed in the basic Christian ethos they professed loyalty to and were obliged to be true to, in the base way they treated the girls, women, babies and children placed in their care by the state. The failure of the Gov't does not excuse what the Christian churches are responsible for.