The other side of adoption 

Lara Johnson writes: Re. “Why adoption should, in some cases, continue” (Friday). While not disagreeing with Jeremy Sammut’s argument that in some instances adoption is the right option, I was absolutely horrified that he included single motherhood as a “serious and intractable problem”, along with substance abuse and domestic violence. Does he seriously believe that single motherhood is a good reason to remove children from mothers? I cannot believe Crikey would publish someone who still thinks this. Perhaps next week you could publish someone arguing women should still be at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Bill Leigh writes: I severely resent Julia Gillard’s carping apology regarding “forced” adoptions. As a family man and wife and also adopters of two needy babies, now grown to fine men in their own businesses with their own wonderful families, I respect their mother. That is, the good, hard-working and principled young woman, now a grandmother, married to me for 47 years, who nurtured the babies, in sickness and in health, led them through kindergarten, sat through endless hours of homework and sports, bringing them to mature young men. We knew the circumstances of the birth mothers, and the boys never expressed any interest in anyone but the mother who loved and nurtured them.

Threatened by Gillard?

Brigid Tancred writes: I am amazed at the number of middle-aged male commentators who continue to write Julia Gillard off. It’s sad that they feel so threatened by a strong woman. I dare either of these pundits to write a column setting out the accomplishments of the Gillard government without writing one word of denigration. Can’t be done, eh?