to think children should be randomly reallocated at birth?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I think this would solve a lot of problems.

For instance, I have a tendency to experience anxiety. My DC therefore both inherit my anxiety genes and also learn from my anxious behaviours (even if I try to minimise this) - a double whammy. If they had been reallocated to someone else, and I had been allocated someone else's biological DC (perhaps with a genetic tendency to feel angry, say; something I suffer less often), this might potentially all get ironed out.

OK, so there are some potential problems with the scheme. But AIBU to think it might have its advantages?

I guess the root of the OP posting is genetics though?

Genetic versus environment. Genetics always throws up unsavoury questions.

I have had pre eclampsia in the past. I read on a forum once that it's genetic. A male commenter suggested it should be screened out from the population.

From a very sweeping general viewpoint as all scientist think the same as do all asd parents [sarcastic emoji] animals ( which humans are) and plants only breed to pass on their DNA. They only raise kids to independence to protect their DNA. All driven by hormones and brain chemicals.

How does the plan fit with that?

I read somewhere that the risk of pre-eclampsia drops if you've had more exposure to the father's sperm.

Best wind up in a while. Well done, OP.

So bonkers and cruel, it has to be a joke.....

At Ham and Mib that is

I know some one who had preeclampsia with her second child with her dh ( she was on the pill so I guess regularly exchanging body fluids). Dr was insistent she had been with the milkman....

Maybe I wasn't bad enough before I had my pfb. BUT than doesn't fit in with the punishment theroy.

I wonder if I was a bad person in a past life? ...nah - reincarnation doesn't fit in with with scientific beliefs.

Does anyone remover Kilroy?

Debates like "when is murder ok?"

Or "I smothered my gran for her inritance - was I wrong?"

Discuss

What a load of bollocks

Ah, great idea on the being allocated a boyfriend. There should be a small leeway for 'stick or twist', but only within reason.

This is going to make everything so fair. Nobody is going to have anything to complain about because it's all fairsies squaresies.

Op I haven't read the whole read other than the first few and I chuckled.

Maybe I wasn't bad enough before I had my pfb. BUT than doesn't fit in with the punishment theroy.

I wonder if I was a bad person in a past life? ...nah - reincarnation doesn't fit in with with scientific beliefs.

That's an awful lot of posts about 'the punishment theory' and 'scientists' in response to what I thought was a fairly straightforward question, inspired only by the wording of your original post...

2boys not all parents are raising children to pass on DNA - adoptive, foster and step-parents all do that. Perfectly do-able.

Might also reduce some stereotyping if you get a different gender/colour of skin/ regional accent (or if you go for the international scope, nationality and language as well. Perhaps Esperanto's time has come?)

Sorry I didn't know if you was being serious or not.

I'm being sarcastic.

If I'm asked if I feel that having a child with special needs is a punishment what should I say?

Punishment from whom? I honestly belive it's partly genetics - a big part. You have no control over your own DNA and I'm not in favour of asking potential fathers to get a full DNA array before having a child.

Punishment could only be from God surely? Because I am a bad person?

So that's it in nut shell.

This is such a stupid thread to have started. It must be a joke. If it's not then I'm very worried about the way you think!!

Smilia I'm no expert, but my info was from the book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids". Books are in storage so I can't pull it out but if I'm remembering correctly the author had reviewed all the studies, so not just on possibly subjective things like personality traits, but on measurable outcomes like income, incidence of health conditions, criminality and so on. And his conclusion on each factor was that genetics was the majority of the story and parenting style made only the tiniest or no difference. And that the difference was mainly in childhood.

As I recall, parents made a difference to e.g. what religion the child identified with as an adult, but not to levels of religiosity/ attendance at church/place of worship etc. I do recall that peer influence was much stronger than parental influence in the teenage years.

However, this was all based on a child growing up in a normal, loving family in the West. If you sent a child to an abusive home or to live in a country with war or starvation or poor medical supplies then obviously they wouldn't reach their true potential.

But the overall conclusion was that all you have to be is 'good enough' and not to worry too much about every little thing you do because in the end your kids will become who they were going to be anyway. Some might find it upsetting that they have so little influence but I found it quite comforting!

Hopefully you never get a job as a legislator OP, that would be bad for the world.

As if any sane government would ever let legislation like this pass from a wild proposal into law...

Umm...golly, is this a plot outline for some random movie about an alternate universe where that kinda weird shit might actually happen?! Am picturing some current favourite Hollywood actor and actress in a desperate battle to keep their own child whilst fighting against the authorities to have the laws overturned and normality restored........

Actually I have always put this in my manifesto for when I am Potential Dictator.

I was trying to invent a way to create a genuinely classless, equal society (when I was about 12), and this was what I came up with.

This will completely out me to my family! I go on about it whenever we discuss the world and politics etc. I did this Christmas!

I think it has lots of positive effects on society. (I've thought about it a lot.)

See my post at the start of this thread.

Brave New World Synopsis

Written in the 1930s. One of the classics of English Literature.
A hard act to follow.

Sgt Brave New World is great, but this scheme is quite different from it.

Meeep, should we meet in an underground bunker to make plans?

Oh god no defo not. Still remember the feeling of waking up in maternity ward first night after ds was born, because I could hear a baby crying, then realising mine was gone from his crib. Utter panic and fear, convinced it was my ds I could hear. Rang the buzzer, and was nearly crying "where's my baby". Midwife was lovely about it, brought him straight back, one of the other midwives was giving him his bottle in other room to let me sleep. Think if someone had suggested giving him to someone else, I'd have decked them.

Yes,mwicked, but if this were the way of things then you'd expect your own baby to be removed so you'd not be scared. You could be looking forward to getting the baby you'd been allocated.

I don't know how op expects this to pan out. Personally I like the idea of children being rotated every 7 years. Presumably the computer would choose completely different ypes of parents each time,mto ensure every child got to see and experience as much variety as possible. When they're grown up they'd be very tolerant and understanding.

Meeep, you were clearly a child ahead of her time!

OP I've often thought the same thing. However as parents (who are not evil monsters) we usually do our best to overcome the genetic traits we pass on.
Nature will out though. There are many stories of twins brought up by different parents where the twins turn out to have live remarkably similar lives. We can only do our best.