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?

Ridiculous suggestion.
Many adoptive relationships break down.
Not sporty here. Pointless me having a sporty child allocated to me. Fortunately my children are genetically similar to me, therefore we do understand each other and even have similar likes and dislikes. Makes for a harmonious family.

Many birth families break down. Adoption break down is usually connected to the damage done to the child by the birth family.

A lot of people seem to be taking the OP' OP very literally

What a totally brilliant idea, OP :)

I mean, it will never happen, and has a lot of downsides.

But it is a great thought experiment. :)

fab thread - love the idea and the thought experiment. Its probably easier for people who aren't hugely given to things like patriotism and nepotism to consider...which may explain the few people who have freaked out completely at the idea and who presumably imagine adoptive parents don't really love their children as much as they personally love their own precious snowflakes.

I certainly see some issues with my DH, who suffers from massive anxiety issues trying to bring up my DD who seems to have inherited said issues. It doesn't always help to have first hand experience more than it would help to not be suffering at the same time.

My own issues are around depression and it is definitely the case that being depressed doesn't increase your chances of supporting someone else with depression very well. Having HAD depression and recovered helps massively of course.

What would it mean for society if you had children not knowing that you would get to raise them?

You would want to make it as unlikely as possible that they could end up in a really shit situation.

Your own interests would be served by a political system that did not encourage massive inequality. You would not be able to use your own wealth and influence to protect your children from the harsh realities of life.

The only way to protect them would be to try to make life less harsh for everyone.

But what if people quickly stopped caring about biological dc's, as a matter of course? And just focused on the dc they were given instead. When it became "the norm". Things would be strange for the first generation to do it, but I think society might adapt, and not really change much.

Well, there might be some good points, but they would only become apparent after the thirty year civil war and mass exodus out of the country that would occur after this proposal became legislation.

I think the idea is interesting though because it opens out a lot of debate. There was an article in the Telegraph recently about a woman who donated eggs to a couple as part of a deal to fund one cycle of her own IVF treatment, which was all she could afford.

Only her embryo didn't survive. And the other woman's did.

To be blunt, the situation had pretty much psychologically fucked her up for life. She just couldn't cope with the idea that she was childless and would remain so, while the couple to which she had donated eggs as part of the IVF deal now had a baby.

We could eliminate racism at a stroke by mixing everyone around.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Look at the issues many societies have with parents lauding one child above another because they have lighter skin, are more attractive, or are taller.

I think posters are also forgetting the importance of oxytocin release in bonding after birth. I suspect that swapping newborns after birth could very possibly lead to high rates of PND.

I bonded really quickly with ds, and didn't have pnd. My mum didn't bond with me at the start (traumatic birth) and had it with me. But bonded with sister straight away and didn't have it then. Makes sense to me there would be a link, must look into oxytocin.

I think true racists would refuse to take a baby of a different race than their own. Or would treat the child badly.

But what if people quickly stopped caring about biological dc's, as a matter of course? And just focused on the dc they were given instead. When it became "the norm". Things would be strange for the first generation to do it, but I think society might adapt, and not really change much.

ah, you are the cynic to my naive revolutionary!

Yes, would people just focus on the children they were given and seek to promote them?

Love to orangerevel, need to finalise plans for what the punishment would be if anyone was caught trying to bribe the scheme organisers.

Plato basically argued for this in his perfect society ruled by philosophical rulers. By breaking up the family unit and making everyone equal it would effectively increase the powers of the political class, and because they would all be philosophical leaders with our best interests at heart we would graciously submit to be governed by such wise heads....

Or it could just make a different sort of family unit.

Would make a good film plot.

Exactly, a family unit without blood ties would be more likely to respond to situations via logic than any sort of overly emotional blood ties.

But could that make us much colder and less loving?

I wouldn't bother having a child if that was the case! I would have remained childless if I didn't have my own.
I don't much like other people's children!

You can't just replace a child with another. Try telling that to someone who has lost a child, or had a miscarriage.

I wouldn't even have been prepared to be a stepmother.

Would we allow people the option to remain childless though?
Another small problem to iron out.

This must qualify for the most bonkers thread on MN.

I think you'd be one of many Headofthehive55, of course some people chose to adopt and many of us are step parents (often as well as parents). A step child is related to your beloved partner and your own dc though and adopters are people who have actively chosen this route.

I would imagine loads of secret free birthing in the forest followed by life in a secret commune of people bringing up their own. Wouldn't be many kids to swap around freely, I'm afraid.

Maryz, maybe we could allocate them not for 7 years (hard to part for so long), but hand them over for a term or something and every parent with a high achieving bio-child gets charged with "closing the gap". You get inspected by the Office for Standards in Parenting (Ofsip) and get a value added score upon which your value to society depends?

So would you get a more difficult child to offset an easier one? What would be the practical implications of getting a good grading from Ofsip?

I don't know, Grapejuicerocks, we'd need to decide what the reward would be, maybe you get to pick your favourite age group, loads of money, or, better perhaps, earn time with your own?