Wrong. Every Christian society in history has done this. Apparently you, living in this modern age of unparalleled decadence, know better than all the centuries of Catholic societies.
It shows a great falling away from basic knowledge of the Faith when a traditional Catholic calls the virtue of shame "a corruption of morals." Shame is one of the two foundations of the cardinal virtue of temperance.
Christian societies were never entirely free of pagan or worldly elements. Shaming women so much as to smuggle away their illegitimate child is not Christian is nor is it the virtue of shame (modesty), but is due to a pagan ideal which puts family pride and honour above charity.
It's the same kind of thinking which made St. Alphonsus' father nearly ruin his vocation because he thought St. Alphonsus would do the family better as the top lawyer in Naples rather than as a mere priest, and also why St. Francis' father thought he'd be better off taking up the family business than wandering around as a begging friar.
Pagan codes of honour are not Christian morals. Like the ancient Roman matron Lucretia who committed suicide after being raped because she thought it was a stain on her chastity – that's not the Christian virtue of shame or chastity, that's just pagan pride. Women who put their children in orphanages solely because they wanted to avoid the public shame were not acting virtuously; they were doing it out of pride (or rather out of great fear of being ostracised for the rest of her life).
If one woman commits fornication once and gets pregnant, and another commits it ten times but does not get pregnant – which has the greater shame?
The one who gets pregnant. Her sin might not be greater, but her shame is.
How does getting pregnant add to the sin of fornication?
By adding shame to the equation. Fornication is a sin, but sometimes it can be a secret sin. But when it proclaims itself openly in the marketplace as it becomes manifest to all, then there is also shame to go along with the sin.
See, it's about being embarrassed "openly in the marketplace." So a woman who commits fornication ten or even a hundred times but who has the "discretion" to cover it up with contraception or abortion, is not as shameful (in your eyes) as one who commits this sin once and who has a baby.
Consider this scenario –
A young woman wants a baby but she is poor and nobody will marry her. However, she has a strong natural desire to have a baby. She commits fornication hoping to conceive a child. She does conceive a give birth to a baby, despite the shame of it being born outside wedlock.
Another young woman is rich and is already promised to a man in marriage. However, she likes to hang around in high society and seduce men to sleep with her. She does what she can to avoid conception, but she conceives a child and aborts it. She later marries the one to whom she was betrothed.
Who has acted more shamefully here? Who has the greater shame in God's eyes? Why should the first be considered a social pariah while the second is allowed to keep her place in society?
Illegitimate birth is not a good, but an evil.
The illegitimacy is an evil, but the birth is not.
"Our saint [Martin de Porres] was the illegitimate son of John de Porres, a Spanish nobleman and Knight of the Order of Alcantara, and Anna Velazquez, a freed, black, slave woman. At first, John was up in arms when he noticed that little Martin was black like his mother, and not tan, like a Spaniard. But later he repented and legally acknowledged Martin and his sister Joan, born two years later, as his own children. Because John, whom she finally married, was away most of the time, holding a government position in another country, poor Anna cared for her two children as best as she could. Finding what jobs she could, she somehow was able to make ends meet. She would often send little Martin to shop at the market place, and many a time he would come back home with an empty basket and no money! There were so many poor in Lima, and the boy could never refuse giving alms to the poor, even when it wasn't his own money, and even though he knew that his mother would scold and punish him when he returned home."
[...]
"Seeing his last chance to snatch the holy brother's soul, the devil too made a last visit to Martin. He tempted him to pride, saying, "Now you've won! You have spurned all obstacles beneath your feet; you're a saint! You can cease beating your breast; now is the moment of triumph!" But the good brother was not one to be fooled. He repulsed the devil by redoubling his acts of humility. The devil persisted, and Martin resisted. Suddenly, our saint fell into ecstasy. The Virgin Mary, St. Dominic, St. Vincent Ferrer and many other saints and angels had come to visit him. Martin made a general confession and begged everyone's forgiveness for his bad example. He then received Viaticum and extreme unction. Soon the clappers were sounded and the whole community came rushing to his cell. They crowded in as much as possible and while the brothers were chanting, the holy brother closed his eyes and went to his heavenly reward. Archbishop Felician de Vega was also there; and in a chocked voice he told the community, "Brethren, let us learn from Brother Martin how to die. This is the most difficult and most important lesson," then he returned to his palace. When some religious were preparing Martin's body for burial, they were astounded and overcome with emotion at seeing his wounded body. As they were dressing him in his new habit, suddenly, the infirmary was filled with piercing cries – Fr. John de Vargas was suffering intensely. Some friars who had just left Martin's cell told the priest to invoke Martin. Then as Fr. John invoked the holy brother, his pains vanished, and after a good night's sleep, he was completely cured. Martin had died in the odor of sanctity and when his body was exposed, it gave off a most delightful perfume that filled the whole church, and penetrated the soul with a sense of joy. Wave after wave of people came to see the holy brother and his body had to be clothed more than once, because they tore and cut his habit to shreds, keeping pieces as relics."
A woman feels shame when she is discovered in her sin. Pregnancy makes the sin visible.
But the pregnancy itself is not evil. The defect is in the woman's heart in choosing to be with a man outside of marriage, not in the woman's body in becoming pregnant. The natural process of becoming pregnant is a good thing in itself, and in the case of fornication it's a good brought out of evil. To the extent that the pregnancy is evidence of the woman's sin which brings shame upon her she should bear it publicly as penance, but without the public driving her to feel that the pregnancy itself is so shameful that she'd be better of killing or otherwise giving the baby away (even against her will).
