Are we reading the same article? Just how good of healthcare did you expect nuns to provide to poor unwed mothers with sickly children in the 1920s?

Who thought this was a good idea?

well clearly the rest of society didn't want to deal with hookers, runnaways, and drug addicts or their children so they probably had no choice but to rely on unreliable charity from the church. It's not like they were snatching healthy babies and chucking them into the garbage. These women were most likely destitute, and if you know anything about pregnancy, an unhealthy mother generally results in an unhealthy baby. Doublely so for the time period that predates antibiotics all the way up to the rationing era of ww2.

It seems like all the outrage is focused on the fact that they dumped the babies into a sewer? As opposed to what? Or where? If they couldn't afford to take care of these women and their kids, why would you expect them to be able to afford little baby funerals for all these kids?

To me, this is an example of society pretending to be outraged while benefiting from looking the other way. Nobody cared about these women or their children until almost a hundred years later. Our outrage/victim culture demands answers to this non-crime because they don't want to tackle the very real problems poor people face today because that would require real work. Lets just bitch about something someone in the past does so we can pat ourselves on our backs and feel good about ourselves.