on 21-03-2013 12:24 PM
on 21-03-2013 09:03 PM
and another case of seeking drama where there really is none.
he used the wrong words for the situation, without malice or ill intent, he apologised - move on.
on 21-03-2013 09:05 PM
I think that the media hones in on vulnerable people and "encourages" them to take it further.
My (willingly/voluntarily) was kind of tongue in cheek, most girls who gave up babies had no real choice, financial and family support were almost invariably non existent, so it was not really a choice.
on 21-03-2013 09:05 PM
What term do most posters feel was more appropriate to have used?
on 21-03-2013 09:06 PM
Az, your friends baby was aparantly one of around 225,000 babies.
Each person affected has the right to feel how they feel (and of course each and every parent and child is an individual ) especially today.
on 21-03-2013 09:09 PM
What term do most posters feel was more appropriate to have used?
That's a good question.
on 21-03-2013 09:09 PM
What term do most posters feel was more appropriate to have used?
What's wrong with simply saying mothers?
And Pepe, #60 I totally agree.
on 21-03-2013 09:09 PM
If I didn't agree to an adoption.If my baby was torn from my arms, my signature forged whatever....today in that apology I would want to be called what I was and should always have been...The Mother
on 21-03-2013 09:10 PM
Yes, they do have that right...... however, the media does not have the right to use them to make a mockery of Mr Abbott. It somehow makes it worse for the mothers, imo.
on 21-03-2013 09:12 PM
So does calling them pitiful and too sensitive doesn't it ?
on 21-03-2013 09:13 PM
I was not calling them pitiful or too sensitive.... it is the media who are pitiful.