The Daily Wire: "Ofensive" "birth mothers" - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

"Ofensive" "birth mothers" I mean, truly!

#1 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:21 AM

Meant to start a thread on this at the time but was caught up with work (and the Feral circus).

Tony Abbott just can't help but offend people it seems.

Tony Abbott said:



Quote

Members of the audience shouted at Mr Abbott repeatedly during his speech where he talked about "honouring the birth parents" - shouting they were true parents, not "birth parents".


Quote

Members of the audience shouted at Mr Abbott repeatedly during his speech where he talked about "honouring the birth parents" - shouting they were true parents, not "birth parents".


We can all agree that truly, they did give birth to their children.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:43 AM

View Posticey, on 23 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Meant to start a thread on this at the time but was caught up with work (and the Feral circus).

Tony Abbott just can't help but offend people it seems.







We can all agree that truly, they did give birth to their children.


Abbott did offend, and he admits it.

Quote

Outside, Mr Abbott said he would learn from his experience.

"We are all doing our best to respond appropriately and apologise as absolutely sincerely and in a heartfelt way as we possibly can for some terrible things that happened in the past and should never happen again," he said, , as he continued to be heckled in the main foyer at Parliament House . "As the Senate inquiry made clear, there is a lot of contention over terminology. It is difficult to make the distinctions that sometimes we are trying to make without upsetting people. We all learn from our experiences and obviously I will learn from today."


He copped it sweet. Isn't that good enough for you?


Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 23 March 2013 - 11:54 AM

View PostHDMC, on 23 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Abbott did offend, and he admits it.

He copped it sweet. Isn't that good enough for you?


I put to you that Abbott has acknowledged that some took offence at his words, and that he apologised as he intended no offence. Quite the diplomatic and even the gentlemanly thing to say.


Posted Image

.... but sorry if I offended you.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 23 March 2013 - 02:35 PM

View Posticey, on 23 March 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

I put to you that Abbott has acknowledged that some took offence at his words, and that he apologised as he intended no offence. Quite the diplomatic and even the gentlemanly thing to say.


Posted Image

.... but sorry if I offended you.
But a gentleman wouldn't have used these words in the first place!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 23 March 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 23 March 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

But a gentleman wouldn't have used these words in the first place!


Abbott! Abbott! Abbott!

I'm a gentleman (argue if you like), but I'm happy to refer to the genetic mother of an adopted child as the "birth mother".

Quote

The hypocritical Age, March 2013:
The profile gave Paul Howes’ account of meeting his birth mother for the first time, at the age of 30, and his upbringing with his stepfather, who believes the article defamed him.


The finger-wagging Age, February, 2013:
The perfect gift from her birth mother made Fiona Scott-Norman think her parent saw into her very being...


The Abbott-Abbott-Abbott Age, January 2013:
Gerd’s birth mother found a sponsor in Australia and, without the help of any assisted passage scheme, paid the princely sum of £440 to emigrate to Australia.


The sanctimonious Age, December 2012:
THE birth dates of babies who were adopted were often changed to prevent them from ever reuniting with their birth mothers, according to adoption activist and researcher Christine Cole.


The double-standards Age, December 2012:
Kim Menta can’t find her birth mother and says her adoption was never formalised.

The bombastic Age, December 2012:
Growing up, he had wondered about the identity of his biological father (a subject that was strictly out of bounds) but never doubted that Enid Raymond was her birth mother 20 years ago. She will spend Mother’s Day with her adoptive mother and phone her natural mother, who lives in a different state.

The holier-than-thou Age, May 2011:
One woman who was born and adopted in the early 1970s met her birth mother 20 years ago. She will spend Mother’s Day with her adoptive mother and phone her natural mother, who lives in a different state. She hates being torn between two families.




George, perhaps it's time to complain to the Press Council about offensive (and un-gentlemanly) Fairfax journalists. And a letter to sympathetic Conroy would be warmly received.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 March 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 23 March 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

But a gentleman wouldn't have used these words in the first place!

Someone delivering such an apology would make sure no offence would be taken. Some people do get worked up over a poor choice of words. Although that's not Abbott's fault necessarily, Abbott should know better that careful choice of words is important if offence is not intended.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 23 March 2013 - 09:13 PM

View Posticey, on 23 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I'm a gentleman (argue if you like), but I'm happy to refer to the genetic mother of an adopted child as the "birth mother".

The circumstances are not the same here. These mothers did not give up their babies willingly. These babies were stolen from them by force, or with coercion, or while the mothers were unconscious, or were otherwise taken against the will of the mothers. Many never even saw their babies. The babies were abducted.

"Birth mother" is used for adoptions and is not appropriate for infant abductions. To use the term "birth mother" asserts that the babies were adopted out consensually when this is not the case.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:53 PM

View PostBam, on 23 March 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

"Birth mother" is used for adoptions and is not appropriate for infant abductions.


Citation needed!!!!!


View PostBam, on 23 March 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

To use the term "birth mother" asserts that the babies were adopted out consensually when this is not the case.


Citation needed!!!!!

I'm truly amazed at the anti-Abbott-Abbott-Abbott position you take Bam. It's not mere semantics to say that use of the term "birth mother" would reasonably indicate a reference to the mother who gave birth. To wit, the multiple Fairfax references along these very lines.

Here's even your ABC just a couple of days ago:

NT woman hears Federal Apology for her forced adoption

Your ABC 21 March, 2013 said:

Nikki Caulfield has spent most of her life trying to figure out where she belongs. As a victim of the forced adoption policy of the 1970s, she was separated from her mother at birth. Today she is in Canberra, reunited with her birth mother, to hear the Federal Apology.


I have spoken with the birth mother of my oldest child, and she is perplexed and unable to understand the reason for umbrage.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 24 March 2013 - 09:29 AM

To be fair to Abbott, I don't think he was being deliberately offensive, but offence was taken nonetheless and it's good that he sort of half apologised.

I'm told Gillard stuck up for him in a Faine interview, though I haven't yet had a listen. If it's true he could learn something from that too.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:18 AM

View PostHDMC, on 24 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

To be fair to Abbott, I don't think he was being deliberately offensive, but offence was taken nonetheless and it's good that he sort of half apologised.

I'm told Gillard stuck up for him in a Faine interview, though I haven't yet had a listen. If it's true he could learn something from that too.


I've since seen the video (on Insiders) and it's clear that he immediately withdrew purely on account of the rowdy trouble maker/s assuming the offended position. It would not have been the time to debate semantics, and in truth, if I was addressing the same crowd I'd probably say once bitten, twice shy.

And yet, in the less heady atmosphere of normal day to day life, I'd suggest that some princesses need to toughen up a little.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:27 AM

By none other than sex therapist "social commentator" Bettina Arndt:

Today's policies are tomorrow's apologies - This trend to social revisionism is silly and dangerous.

Quote

But it is nonsense to suggest the government policies supporting the relinquishing of infants by single women before the 1970s were prompted by punitive attitudes simply aimed at punishing ''immoral'' women. As with all social policies, the practices of the time were seen as being in the best interests of the children and their mothers, given the stigma attached to being born out of wedlock and the absence of any financial support for single mothers.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:33 AM

View Posticey, on 24 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

I'd suggest that some princesses need to toughen up a little.



That's a despicable thing to say. These women were genuinely upset.



Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:22 AM

View Posticey, on 24 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

I've since seen the video (on Insiders) and it's clear that he immediately withdrew purely on account of the rowdy trouble maker/s assuming the offended position. It would not have been the time to debate semantics, and in truth, if I was addressing the same crowd I'd probably say once bitten, twice shy.

And yet, in the less heady atmosphere of normal day to day life, I'd suggest that some princesses need to toughen up a little.

"rowdy trouble makers"... not very understanding, are you? Could it be that Abbott misspoke and apologised appropriately [which would be a good thing, by the way]?

I also saw that clip and saw Henderson's puerile attempt to water down the apology issue by mumbling about "some children were willingly given up for adoption."

By saying 'toughen up' I think you demonstrate (a) your complete ignorance of the issue and (b) a total inability to understand the pain caused by these practices in the past.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:50 AM

View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

By saying 'toughen up' I think you demonstrate (a) your complete ignorance of the issue and (b) a total inability to understand the pain caused by these practices in the past.


It's doubtless that there could be pain related to adoption practices (voluntary as well as involuntary). Some children were certainly given up for adoption willingly, influenced largely by societal common practices of the time. Same goes nowadays where children are brought up by absolutely hopeless parents because it's expected that the parent/s, no matter how lacking will rise up to the task. The pendulum has swung too far.

To be offended by the harmless expression of the commonly used phrase "birth mother" suggests that the individual has issues in need of counselling. IMHO.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#15 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 24 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

View Posticey, on 24 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

It's doubtless that there could be pain related to adoption practices (voluntary as well as involuntary). Some children were certainly given up for adoption willingly, influenced largely by societal common practices of the time. Same goes nowadays where children are brought up by absolutely hopeless parents because it's expected that the parent/s, no matter how lacking will rise up to the task. The pendulum has swung too far.

To be offended by the harmless expression of the commonly used phrase "birth mother" suggests that the individual has issues in need of counselling. IMHO.

Really -your answer is to go with Gerard Henderson's rubbish?

I guess you accept the points I made above, which you quoted. I wasn't commenting on 'birth mother' rather on your failure to understand the basic issues.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 24 March 2013 - 03:30 PM

View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Really -your answer is to go with Gerard Henderson's rubbish?


I'll accept from memory that Gerard Henderson did make a reference to some children being willingly given up for adoption.

Without the rhetoric of a "puerile attempt to water down the apology issue", do you agree that some children were willingly given up for adoption?


View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

I guess you accept the points I made above, which you quoted.


Not sure what you mean, but if I include a quotation of your post, then acceptance can hardly be presumed.

View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

I wasn't commenting on 'birth mother' rather on your failure to understand the basic issues.


So can I assume (!) that you're OK with the term "birth mother" this being to mean the "mother who gave birth"?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 24 March 2013 - 04:06 PM

View Posticey, on 24 March 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

I'll accept from memory that Gerard Henderson did make a reference to some children being willingly given up for adoption.

Without the rhetoric of a "puerile attempt to water down the apology issue", do you agree that some children were willingly given up for adoption?




Not sure what you mean, but if I include a quotation of your post, then acceptance can hardly be presumed.



So can I assume (!) that you're OK with the term "birth mother" this being to mean the "mother who gave birth"?

Again, trying to water down the issue with a detail. It's an insult to the people involved.

Go back and read the posts. Your 'harden up' comment was shockingly inappropriate and insensitive. Again, an attempted diversion on your part; if the people involved don't like it then don't use it.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#18 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 24 March 2013 - 09:07 PM

View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Again, trying to water down the issue with a detail. It's an insult to the people involved.


The separate and undiluted issue (which I'd presume to be regarding forced adoptions and their effect on "stake holders") is not being watered down by anybody to my awareness. Certainly not on this forum here.


View Postscotto, on 24 March 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Again, an attempted diversion on your part; if the people involved don't like it then don't use it.


So can I assume (!) that you're OK with the term "birth mother" this being to mean the "mother who gave birth"? Or are you now re-educated, just like some recent speakers on the topic?

And are you now outraged by Fairfax's "insults" referred to in my prior post? Or by the ABC's insults also quoted earlier?

Come on man (and I'm also talking to HDMC and others of like mind), be consistent!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#19 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 25 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

View Posticey, on 24 March 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

The separate and undiluted issue (which I'd presume to be regarding forced adoptions and their effect on "stake holders") is not being watered down by anybody to my awareness. Certainly not on this forum here.




So can I assume (!) that you're OK with the term "birth mother" this being to mean the "mother who gave birth"? Or are you now re-educated, just like some recent speakers on the topic?

And are you now outraged by Fairfax's "insults" referred to in my prior post? Or by the ABC's insults also quoted earlier?

Come on man (and I'm also talking to HDMC and others of like mind), be consistent!

Yes, it was diluted by you repeating Gerard Henderson's rubbish.

No. don't assume I'm okay with that terminology. I'm not "re-educated," either. And I've never used that term in this debate, so your appeal to consistency is redundant. You should also explain what 'like mind' you are referring to.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:26 PM

icey said:

So can I assume (!) that you're OK with the term "birth mother" this being to mean the "mother who gave birth"?


View Postscotto, on 25 March 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

No. don't assume I'm okay with that terminology.


Well I guess the answer will have to remain your little secret.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply