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 can't believe how so many posters have obviously not considered this and are suggesting OP has therapy, doesn't reproduce and are actually being quite rude!

Worrying, isn't it? Still, if you're permanently primed to be self-righteously indignant I guess a lot of things whoosh right over your head.

It's an interesting and fun concept OP.
I'm sorry the loons are being rude to you.

No. Just no. I want to keep my own kids, thank you very much.

And, what about genetic tendencies towards things affecting physical health, like heart disease, or diabetes, or breast cancer? If there's a family history showing a tendency towards physical health problems like these, wouldn't it be useful for them to know about it? They can't know if they're randomly reallocated at birth, surely.

Actually, thinking on it, I think it would probably be useful for someone to be aware of an inherited tendency towards your examples of anxiety or anger too.

I believe hamsters sometimes eat their young. Perhaps that's also something to look at.

WhyCantIuseTheNameIWant - It's too late to take it back now. I'm reporting you to the government for enthusiastically responding to a pretend child replacement scheme.

This thread has really made my day because

1. It's a brilliant but bonkers idea

and

1. Some posters have no sense of humour (whose responses are almost as funny as your OP)

No. I take that back. The indignant and outraged responses of some posters is funnier!!!!!!

I remember the days when a thread title didn't need to include the words to keep away the raging flame throwers..

Problem with your theory OP is that accidental incest would become a real dating hazard

It's not a light hearted idea though is it? It's a horrific idea.

I know what you mean. With anxiety and depression you're dealing with genetic predisposition plus being raised by someone with the same issues, so nature and nurture.

If it helps, I know that when it comes to (clinical) depression, sensitive parenting can overcome the genetic predisposition. Someone who understands their anxiety and the way it impacts them is likely to do everything in their power to minimise the effect on their DC and be supportive of their DC's feelings. A sensitive child in the care of 'pull yourself together' types really doesn't thrive.

Erm...
We are all human and none of us are perfect.

Not sure what swapping babies with strangers would achieve - surely the new baby would also pick up and mimic your anxiety along with whatever 'genetic' thing they bring with them.

Surely the best thing you can do is deal with whatever issues you do have (if you have any at all) and try to give your kids the happiest and best upbringing that you can. I think that's what most of us do already.

You are not just being unreasonable, you're being a bit batshit!

I wouldn't want yours if they don't like the orange revels tbh

But defo nicking the idea for a book

Since we're speculating and being lighthearted, you morose fuckers, surely gene sequencing can take care of the health knowledge side of things? Your randomly allocated kid comes with a detailed report on health risks, plus family history of illness, if any.

Great idea for a novel.

All those teenagers who are convinced they cannot possibly be related to the fools who are trying to ruin their lives for them...will be right!

it's not horrific at all, it makes perfect sense.

Oh yes, accidental incest is something we'd have to think about. How about geographical shuffling, too?

obsidian obviously as a serious suggestion it would be insane. OP has made clear she's joking!!

or... you could go down the dog breeding route and allocate sires to balance out potential genetic flaws. So if you have a tendency to luxating patellas anxiety, you would be married by the state to a bloke with strong conformation a family history of extreme chilled-out-ness.

Or not.

When I had DD my biggest fear wasn't the pain but her being taken from me and put with lots of babies in rows of cots and me getting the wrong one, I told my DP to watch where she went and insist she had a name tag, in the end I was in a birthing centre so stayed with her all the time. Maybe this idea should be optional.

surely gene sequencing can take care of the health knowledge side of things?

That sounds expensive.

Sorry, the 'joke' was lost on me ..
Bizarre thread.

Op. I think your attempt at lightheartedness has fallen on deaf ears! Shame. My DS would I am sure agree with you! And I will read the novel when it comes out

But if you have potential genetic conditions that you don't want to pass on.....you would still be passing it on...but for some law to deal with.

It's bonkers doesn't even make sense.

There is no double whammy.

I don't think it's funny

Let's hope that the pearl-clutchers on this thread never accidentally happen upon Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'!