The home, which was run by an order of Catholic nuns and closed in 1961, was one of many such institutions that housed tens of thousands of orphans and unmarried pregnant women who were forced to give up their children throughout much of the 20th century.
In 2014, historian Catherine Corless tracked down death certificates for nearly 800 children who died at the home in Tuam between the 1920s and 1961 — but could only find a burial record for one child.
- According to the church, babies are without sin. If they die at birth, they go straight to heaven.
- Abortion was illegal at the time.
- Contraception was not widely available at the time, heavily discouraged by the church, and was still very primitive and hit-and-miss.
- There were far more unwed mothers having babies than couples who couldn’t have children, but wanted them.
1+1=2.
I’m curious where you got the idea that the church thinks babies are born without sin from when Original Sin is a thing.
What in the fuck
my first thought as well.
do you want icing on your cake?
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/catherine-corless-ireland-mass-grave-babies
All these institutions of god trying to tell us our souls will be saved if we follow them. and that the “other” religions are prophligates, infidels, devils and heretics. LMAO
I’ve yet to find one that isn’t hiding a history of butchery
Buddhist temple, tibetan monks, the dali lama? or are they on that list too?
Yes. Famously owning slaves
care to share more for moi the uninformed?
my country (sadly) was more about transporting slaves
well beat my record.
I love how the headline says as if this happened recently. Clowns.
The article is a pile of crap. However another excavation has started this week, which is what probably what triggered the publish of this crap.
If you are interested here are better sources:
DNA analysis found that the ages of the dead ranged from 35 weeks gestation to 3 years.
Ok, atrocities aside, how the hell can you tell age from DNA? DNA doesn’t change as you age.
Your DNA sequence is generally pretty stable, but other characteristics do. Epigenetics is the field. Another example is methylation, which is basically like your cell putting a post-it note that says “don’t use this” on a particular region. By looking at a bunch of different methylation sites an age can be estimated.
But in this case, it appears that the article is just mixing up “genetic testing was performed” and “the ages were determined” (separate statements from previous articles.)
Honestly, the area of forensic science is in question for me. You would have a better time determining approximate age from bone development and skull hardness. I think the journalist is rushing to be the first to publish.
It’s an old story. The age range determination was like 2014, the big headline for genetic testing was done in like 2018.
It actually does, telomeres shorten, this is one of the most important reasons why we, you know, age.
Telomeres don’t shorten at a fixed rate, though, so determining age from that doesn’t work.
You don’t, the „journalist“ just made that up instead of searching for a minute finding details that would have enabled them to write a proper article.
There’s even an extensive Wikipedia article outlining known facts and atrocities - dumping the bodies is probably the least atrocious thing they’ve done.
There is even a Tuam Home Survivors website listing the names of the deceased and how they were uncovered by the historian.
Apparently this week they started a new dig to uncover the bodies as they found some but not nearly all of them.
It took me just a couple of minutes to uncover the info and write a tiny bit of that down. This is how journalism dies.
EDIT: This ARTE.tv Documentary outlines that DNA is used as you would expect: to identify the remains of lost relatives.
Thank you. I asked myself same. Telomeres I guess you would need to know the length after birth. But we only have one sample (moment of death). Plus the victims bodies are probably not very good preserved. My best guess is, the text is just not accurate and they might used DNA testing for different things (sex, etc).
Telomere length is the only thing I can think of, but that’s totally a guess and I don’t know much about it. Telomeres, as I understand it, are padding at the end of DNA and shorten as you age.
I’d guess they look at the telomeres but I don’t how accurate it can be.
Antitheism needs to rise.
Wow, thinking religion is bad just because there are more babies than you can really comprehend looking at in this septic tank, and you had to ask yourself ‘wait I’ve read this one before’?
Bigot.
This is satire right? Fuck I can’t tell anymore.
Yeah! How many times has a religion done this?
And that first one you thought of doesn’t count. Or the next 3 cause those were all recent mass graves. Or those old ones if you thought of those. So just don’t count the first 20 times of this from religions that pop into your head and then tell me how often you really think this happened.
Heretic.
Sure man, whatever you say. I’m happy to be bigoted when it comes to religion. Most religions promote being a bigot anyway, so whatevs.
religions don’t deserve to exist.
Religion is the last mental illness you can’t call out or treat. When you have Mike Huckabees et al going around ushering in the End Times, we should have the power to medicate these people into a barely functional stupor.
Inb4 hot takes that are especially relevant in June.
Pray for my soul.
I agreed up until the end. Forcefully medicating people into a “barely functional stupor” is a horrific human rights violation.
It’s not. If you see someone with a clearly broken leg and unconscious, do you wait for the person to wake up?
They can exist - if they pay taxes.
I’d rather they not, though.
Sure but you might be making some assumptions that don’t really apply here.
You mean assumptions about the 800 dead hidden babies in what is a very common finding inthese settings? Those assumptions?
Yes, those assumptions.
Do you think they had a valid and good reason to hide 800 dead babies in a septic tank?
It wasn’t a septic tank.
It was a structure with 20 compartments which was originally designed as some kind of sewage management system but was never used as such.
So your question is really, do I think they had a valid and good reason to bury 800 infants, who had died from various bacterial and viral infections over a long period of time.
The obvious answer to that is yes.
It was a refuge for mothers and children. There’s no indication of any abuse or neglect of the deceased at this time. I’m sure there are many valid criticisms to be made about this time and this place, and certainly there are valid criticisms to be made about religion, but this refuge is not the baby murder facility you’re looking for.
There’s a snopes article with a lot more information which challenges the assumptions you’re making:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/18/796-children-septic-tank-ireland/
Your god hates you, which is why she made you stupid.
Why did they hide them, then?
Except that Snopes article does not even agree with you.
It’s time you stopped excusing and glossing over the atrocities committed.
Sources on how fucked up Irish mother and baby homes were:
the idea of banning religion is painfully tyrannical, like how could you do that without instituting a thought police or a state sanctioned belief system…
however, in reality, they most toxic part of religion of organised religions, when they are big institutions fighting for political power rather than maintaining their beliefs and communities.
possible solution: progressive tax on religious institutions based on their size, a small community of 50 to 100? tax free, you have 1000s of congregants? start rising, megachurches with 1000 thousand people? 95% tax…
banning religion? I didn’t say ban it.
i assumed you wanted them gone.
I do. religion is a profound evil, and the cause of nearly all human suffering.
God has caused the bloodiest and most brutal wars ever fought, which were all based on religious hatred. Millions have died simply because ‘God told’ Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Christians it would be a ‘good idea’ for them to kill each other.
- George Carlin, Comedian and Social Critic
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been . . . the most destructive to . . . the peace and happiness of man.
- Thomas Paine, Political Philosopher (1796)
The bloodiest wars in history have been religious wars.
- Richard Nixon, even this Dick thinks so
I don’t think religion itself is evil. But corporate religion. Organizations and individuals that claim religion as the reasons for thier own sin for profit. People waving the bible as an excuse to do harm unto others.
Worship of a higher power or purpose shouldn’t ever be used as a reason or means to commit sins. That’s the major problem. Corruption and hypocrisy is rampant because people gather power under the flag of religion. Power easily corrupts the more it gathers.
agree 100%
but will be pedantic and complain about your usage of “sin”, as it is a Christian concept and not necessarily a bad thing.
Sin/evil deeds then. Many decent religions denounce evil deed and have good morals. Then there are other religions that promote sacrifice of life (your own or others).
If your society cannot or will not support an unmarried pregnant woman on her own, your society is a failed one.
Religion is such hypocrisy. No wonder people are turning away.
On one hand, they tell people don’t use birth control, no abortion ; on the other hand, they don’t protect them.
This isn’t the only place this has happened. More info here.
Good one! Added it to the list of sources:
- Arte.tv
- Part One: How The Catholic Church Murdered Ireland’s Babies | Behind The Bastards
- Wikipedia article
- Tuam Home Survivors
- easy to find sources as they are all over the place
It’s fucked up that up to today and ITT there are still people trying to gloss over and excuse the atrocities. Let’s show them what Streisand Effect means.
Thats awful, but you know who wont drown babies and hide their bodies in a septic tank?
I swear to God if the answer is a shark…
Don’t get off topic. Also, that’s speciesist, and just kind of rude.
The answer is the sponsors of this podcast!
Edit: Also, sharks would never do that, though. None of you have any reason to fear u-them.
Today’s septic tank full of dead babies is brought to you by RAID: SHADOW LEGENDS!
Satanic Panic was projection.
If we do shit like this, imagine what they could do!
Yeah, and the irony is that in the Bible, Lucifer never even asked for an animal or human sacrifice, but god did.
If we go after things that weren’t said in the Bible then hell as we imagine should be among the first. Maybe that’s the reason clergy are so beyond repair?
And while we are at it, the description of hell we used to is Dante’s storytelling of Hieronymus Bosch’s interpretation of an Irish monk’s account of a early medieval Cork knight’s bag trip.
The serpent never even told Eve to eat the fruit (the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, why would God create such a tree and why wouldn’t he want humans to have such knowledge? So stupid). All it did was tell her that it was an option.
Excellent name.
Also, under the Christian dogma, Satan has no authority beyond what God allows. Who then is truly responsible for his actions?
The band names are thick in the comments.
My brain took a moment to register the word infant. As in the child was already born.
Could have been worse, could have been atheists running the home.
Imagine how bad it might have been if it had been Satanists…
Given the shit apologists write ITT you really need to use the “/s” marker.
Yeah, like that’ll help.
Wait, I think you’re right, I always write my comments in the deadpan sarcasm of a Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley. I assume it carries over TCP/IP and HTML… Guess not.
Oh, and here: /s, apply to my first sentence.
Ever since Trumps 1st term satire and sarcams have been slowly dying. Since then it’s gotten so bad that now matter how outlandish your post/comment is - there is a maga cult member who’ll top whatever you wrote and is completely serious about it.
Yeah, I’m going to use /s every time.
There would have been no remains.
Ah yes, because atheists eat babies. I remember now.
Finally someone gets the reference! Stupid down voters.
We should hang out and put a fetus on the grill.
If there was an infant death, it would also have been reported to authorizes and given proper respects. The number of deaths is way to high, but SIDS is real and atheists wouldn’t have dumped the bodies in a mass grave in the backyard.
This was my original comment:
Get informed and stop being an apoligistI indeed misinterpreted the intention of the comment I replied to and leave this here so the comment chain still makes sense. However, I still disagree with the word choice especially with putting SIDS forward.
Sources:
You vastly misinterpreted the intention of my comment. I was merely pointing out the other thing the church is guilty of.
You linked me the Behind the Bastards episode, but I also linked that same souce earlier.
Sorry, in the context of the many apologists in this thread still trying to smear the historian and to gloss over the atrocities and you bringing up SIDS I missed you intention.
I still disagree with youur comment though. I think that is it less likely for an atheist organisation to commit the same atrocities and there being no known incidents of similar coverups. Still, any organization starving and mistreating children will try hide their crimes and their victims bodies regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
In short: I agree with your intent but I disagree with how you worded it.
My only point is that even if an infant dies under the watch of a secular or atheist org, which even with top facilities, statically will happen eventually, the deceased will be treated with dignity. SIDS is the first example I could think of because people still aren’t sure what causes it or what to do about it.
I think I understand where you are coming from. The undignified disposal of corpses is the least of the commited atrocities in in this facility. The infant mortality rate was 5 times the average of the time, the children were malnourished and abused. Take a look at the other sources.
In this context mentioning SIDS comes across as an apology. If a non-denominational facility would murder and abuse children at this rate they’ll also hide the corpses. The core issue isn’t dignified burial but abuse and murder.
Most of the infants died from bacterial or viral infections.
I’m old enough to remember everyone getting all bent out of shape by Sinead O’Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope.
She was a couple of years early, but right.
But she paid a huge price for being too early :(
Didn’t she go full Islam afterwards though? Like… Bruh.
Not immediately… She was pretty much blacklisted for like 20+ years
No. Show your work.I have been educated today.
Fuckin’ weird move, Sinead.
I mean, it was 26 years after the pope thing but she did convert to Islam. Even changed her name.
HUH. Okay, fair enough.
Oconnor was a victim of child sex abuse. Can you blame her for going after her church which actively hides child rape and murder? I think whatever your views are on Islam, you should let her have this choice without judgement. Shaking your finger at rape victims is… not a great response here.
Can you blame her for recognizing and turning her back on a harmful patriarchal religion that victimizes women and children and turning to… Islam? Yeah, I can.
I don’t. Her talent doesn’t make her anything special outside of that talent. A person can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Also, it happened during a time when Muslims were facing torment from the outside world because of 9/11. She wasn’t the only artist to convert to Islam during that time, but most of the ones I remember reading about at least had some potential connection to the religion through their ancestry.
Some people cannot fathom a world without religion, even when they see the destruction in what they’re familiar with. If you spend your heart fighting one enemy, it’s a lot easier to miss the crimes of the enemy next door, especially if that enemy is a perceived underdog.
Edit:
2018 is when she converted apparently, but she still would have seen and felt the post 9/11 world. I don’t know much of anything so disregard everything I said if you want to or tell me why I’m an idiot if I deserve it.
I question your judgement, and hers, but I also think people should be able to make poor choices so long as bystanders aren’t hurt. If she’s funding jihad, that’s a problem (and I don’t know if she is or not). If she’s living and letting live, I’m not going to criticize. I’ll make my own, different, poor choices.
Islam in and of itself is not problematic, not anymore than Christianity at least. Like with literally every religion, it’s the strict conservatives within the religion that are the ones who enforce ridiculous mores and dress codes and other things that are detrimental to the health of the followers of that religion.
It’s just funny that she could see the cruelty towards children and women in one religion and not another that is equally culpable.
Again, religion does not equal church. She spent a lot of time as a Catholic trying to make other Catholics see the evils within the church. I think she just became tired of being the town cryer in a world that doesn’t give a shit. And Islam, the religion and belief system not the various organized churches, might have held some amount of peace for her soul. Criticizing her for converting and not starting a whole new crusade to stop the myriad of abuse found within the various sects of Islam is just silly. Especially since there are already a million voices pointing out the faults in the Islamic churches already.
Sinéad AKA Shuhada begs to differ
“This is to announce that I am proud to have become a Muslim. This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant. I will be given (another) new name. It will be Shuhada’”
— Shuhada’ Davitt (@MagdaDavitt77) AKA Sinéad O’Connor
She left main stream catholicism before the SNL incident: “The 51-year-old was previously ordained a priest by a breakaway Catholic sect, the Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the late 1990s” source: Irish Post
She was a troubled being (who wouldn’t be with her childhood?), so not all her decisions are relatable. Converting to main stream (Sunni) Islam still sticks out as weird.
Yeah, you are still pinning her for her belief in Islam because members of Islam have been and continue being vile detestable people. But they aren’t vile detestable people because of their belief in Islam any more than the Christians, Catholic or otherwise, are evil because of their belief in Christianity. They are vile and detestable people regardless of their belief. Their religious beliefs isn’t the source, though it does end up being a justification for those acts. But that’s just sophistry used to cover their own prejudices.
She dumped Christianity and chose a different religion. That doesn’t make her culpable for the evils of that religion any more than anyone else is for the deeds of others who believe in the same religion they do.
It’s worth mentioning that Joe Pesci did SNL the following week and said “I would have gave [sic] her such a smack. I would’ve grabbed her by her … eyebrows.” AFAIK he has never apologized for this.
Not only Joe Pesci, also Madonna and others. But fuck Joe Pesci for not even apologizing after her death.
She didn’t really explain much at the time though, and when she did it never got a lot of publicity. People thought she was just attacking Catholics as a whole.
All most people saw was her ripping up a picture, going “fight the real enemy” and then a bunch of smear articles about her going mental.
I remember that and I still listen to Mandika.
