News: Catholic Church embroiled in massive baby selling conspiricy

300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html

Franco wanted babies raised by the politically reliable. the Church wanted them raised by the ideologically, morally, and financially responsible, and to make a shitload of money. The Catholic Church is the single most insidious organized crime ring in history. Centuries of organized child rape pale in comparison to this crime. This story is over a year old. Why is this not an international outrage?

There are no words.

Has anyone here ever seen the movie The Omen with Gregory Peck? It's like a real-life version, without the mythical antichrist shit. Unbelievable.

Fight the real enemy.

anyone reading the story will immediately acknowledge how heinous and outrageous this practice was, but you must wonder whether the lives of a substantial percentage of the children were far better than they would have otherwise been. i don't say this to exculpate the Church or the medical personnel who perpetrated the crimes, only to try to find some saving grace.

Now that my horror meter is off the high peg from last week, I'm looking at this story and thinking it won't go anywhere in the states.

Catholic scandals involving children are old news.
It happened somewhere else and ended 20 years ago.
It was started by an infamous dictator, not the church.
As Christians will and have pointed out, it's conceivable that it worked out well for some of the kids involved.
The headline looks like an anti-Catholic exaggeration or outright lie, so not many will read the actual story. I checked on Snopes and waited several days before saying anything at all.

All these talking points will be used, consciously or not, and the story will die without getting the outrage it truly deserves. Atheists like myself will mark it down as yet another point against organized religion, non-Catholics will say it wasn't them, Catholics will call it the act of a few and not representative of the church as a whole, and it will all go away with nothing changed.

I am so depressed right now. Merry effing Christmas.

the way you phrase this makes it sound like a few of the 3ooK might have benefited. i hesitated saying "most" because of how horrible the abuse of power was, but it's likely that it was more than half, maybe even two-thirds. that makes none of it right. it shouldn't have happened, but let's not assume that the kids who were better off represent a small percentage.

may the farce be with you???

Tell all 300,000 the truth about their origin and then ask them if they think they came out ahead in the deal. I don't think the results would be as rosy as you believe.

the greater percentage appear to have been single women, so, unless there is some kind of extended family system, it's hard to figure that most kids in those situations are better off than two parent homes.

Should have sent them to Ireland. The church there knew how to deal with the children of unwed mothers.

very useful content, that

Better by your barometer, maybe. I doubt asking these 300,000 kidnap victims if they were better off being kidnapped and sold would yield the same results. This is all academic, however. I don't care if your think they are better off because your opinion doesn't matter (though I would hypothesize that it's opinions like your that led to this in the first place.) I can't prove my point because it involves finding all 300,000 and interviewing them, which isn't going to happen.

It's opinions like yours that ensure something as heinous as this will just slip under the radar in this country. It's apparently ok to kidnap newborns as long as they end up sold to someone who is married. You make it sound like it's even a good idea.

as i said before, i'm trying to find some solace in a horrible situation. your evaluation of my motives is based on blinkered ignorance.

if it were in my power, i would send the people who did this to prison.

calling this kidnapping may be technically correct, but the children had no idea, so they were not subjected to any trauma. it's better for those who don't know that they were stolen that they not know, since knowing doesn't change the past or better their future.

Merry Christmas.

oh, and statistically, children from a single mother home are much more likely to commit crimes and suffer emotionally than children from two parent households.

Well statistically less religion leads to less crime.

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/blog/2012/12/11/religion-and-crime-correlation-jzbdg/

Not everyone agrees.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jpr-98-2.htm

don't you wish the studies were performed in Spain?

my point is that kids in 2 parent households do better than kids in single parent (usually mother) homes. that's not subject to debate.

I agree, that is why gey couples should be allowed to adopt.

But just because it is better it does not mean kids should be taken away, I mean if we look at statistics by race or income levels, and did what the Catholic church did we would be taking kids away from poor religious minorities and giving them to atheists rich white people to raise since statistically speaking the later would do a better job raising kids than the former and that's not subject to debate.

the ******** it isn't

don't be stupid. the stats are conclusive.

did i say that kids should be taken away?

no.

did i say the Catholic Church people and the medical people who perpetrated this horrible travesty of "well-intentioned" abuse of power should be in prison.

yes.

all i'm saying is that from the broadest perspective this cannot seen as ALL bad! that doesn't mean that it's OK that it did take place. some kids certainly benefited. which kids? who knows?

the religious v. atheist issue isn't part of the discussion. that's an unweighed factor.

Apparently I just can't help it, must be my two-parent household upbringing (at least until I was 16)
They are in no way "conclusive", mostly because "the way you turn out" is way too subjective to be considered "statistics" in any meaningful way.

You are basically saying it is better for a kid to be raised in a dangerous/unloving/destructive two-parent household than a loving decent one-parent family?
You have to really stretch to say what you are saying. And I call bullshit.

Since many if not most 2 parent households are 2 income households, the increased income comprises much of the benefit to children of being in a 2 parent household.

there again you're using a single anecdote to dismiss the general rule.

don't do that. it looks stupid.

I guess a test could be homes with more than 2 parents (Mormons, Muslims).

The more parents the better for the kids if @StiltonFC is right.

The difference would be how many of the parents in the house hold work, if we have 1 working husband and 4 stay at home mothers is that better than 2 working mothers and 1 stay at home mother?

If it is just the number then Slton would be right, if it is the income then the more working parents in the house hold would do better in a study.