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?

Beat me to it, whycantiuse, adolescent DS here in dire need of rehoming.

2boysnamedR
Yes I'm sure any randomer we would love to parent my autistic kids. Seeing as they get such acceptance in general society. What could go wrong?

I might be reading this into your comment, but do you see the challenges of parenting autistic children as some kind of punishment you deserve for having produced them?

If you just mean that it's been a hard slog and you've had to learn a lot of stuff about how to parent them, do you not think acceptance would be higher if they were distributed more widely among the population, so more parents had to acquire that knowledge and experience of autism? On that subject, do you think that the younger autistic sibling of an autistic child has a more positive upbringing than the older child due to the parents' amassed experience, or does the potentially negative experience of having an autistic sibling (more stressed/drained parents, increased observed conflict at home...?) weigh in more, such that an autistic child would be better off in a family without other autistic children? I am not especially knowledgeable when it comes to autism, I apologise if the above seems offensive in any way.

Would siblings be placed with siblings? I'm guessing not as if the scheme is give bier the to a child and ten receive a child that would depend on both the birth and the new parents having babies at the same time , this would lead to the potentials for siblings (who havnt grown up together and don't know each other) to meet and reproduce hence creating childbirth potentially far worse problems.

I can't write for shit, but I really really want to write a book on this now.

I have five I will happily swap!! You can't have the littlest one as she is still quite cute. My stroppy 12 year old has anxiety like me so he can go.

I don't have autism in my family so there's no transfer of behaviours from parents.

I think when people stop looking at any child that isn't sitting silently smiling as a badly behaved child then more kids with asd can be accepted.

My elder Sen child is very mild compared to his younger brother and there are two neurotypical siblings. Asd in most I think is genetic. If it was all environment then they would all be autistic.

I know there is genetics at play here as a gene has passed on for a parent who has no symptoms.

No, each sibling gets allocated independently, Brie. It's the rules.
And you can't choose the cute ones either .

As for parenting of children with SN... well, whenever you have a child you have no idea (including once you already have them) what will come your way. There's so much chance, and you have to accept unpredictability in making the decision to breed (or otherwise). This won't change fundamentally under The Scheme, although it might become more stark/immediately obvious, and make us all consider the implications and possibilities more widely.

It would be an awful idea, surely the biological link is the only reason some of our dc have lived as long as they have without being throttled

Pretty sure the best people to raise DD to deal with her genetic condition are her parents - ie me, who's lived with it all my life, and DP, who is an expert from having lived with me? And yes, I'm sure anyone prone to PND and anxiety would be thrilled at having no idea what has happened to their child after they've given birth to them.

We could eliminate racism at a stroke by mixing everyone around. Shame it probably wouldn't affect religious intolerance, as that's an environmental factor, I guess.

Excellent thread, exercising everyone's powers of imagination. Apart from those who took it seriously, of course.

I'm still visualising a little bell ringing every few years; like circuit training, moving the offspring on to the next family....

I've changed my mind. DD has just taken her trousers off and is sitting behind the sofa nibbling her toes. Anyone fancy a swap?

As for parenting of children with SN... well, whenever you have a child you have no idea (including once you already have them) what will come your way. There's so much chance, and you have to accept unpredictability in making the decision to breed (or otherwise). This won't change fundamentally under The Scheme, although it might become more stark/immediately obvious, and make us all consider the implications and possibilities more widely

And what happens if it's a SN that could have been caused by the action or inaction of the birth mother?

If you get allocated a child with e.g. foetal alcohol syndrome or spina bifida, would you get to complain that you're a lifelong tee-totaler and you took your folic acid religiously so that's not fair? (Although taking folic acid religiously isn't an absolute guarantee that a baby won't have spina bifida)

Or would all pregnant women be forced to adopt lifestyle changes designed to maximise the chance of a healthy baby, so that a random couple doesn't have to deal with the consequences of bad lifestyle choices during pregnancy?

But surely there would be still " God only gives Sen kids to special parents" as God would have a hand in the allocation?

I do adoptive parents who have knowingly taken on SN kids and later their SN siblings. They are amazing parents, in my case it's just random luck as said up thread.

I do know

this would lead to the potentials for siblings (who havnt grown up together and don't know each other) to meet and reproduce hence creating childbirth potentially far worse problems.

Perhaps DNA testing during dating would become standard?

With families getting more fragmented - ie more parents usually men losing touch with their offspring and/or having multiple families and birth certificate not always having father listed due to PR issues- and all the artificial technologies around birth like donor sperm/egg/embryos- is this becoming an issue?

To answer the questions above

I don't see my kids as a punishment. As a scientist it's genetics. Also environment to some extent ( she says out her backside as no one has a difinayive answer in reality), Plus there's no reason for life ( talking as a scientist). It's all a happy random accident due to our perfect atmosphere and position from the sun.

If there is a God and I have in fact been punished then thanks, they are lovely very interesting kids who have turned most of my values in life on their head. I'm sure I drank far too much as teenager and student and I don't love kittens so it's a possibility. Ps drinking was a good 15 years before I had the asd kids.

Younger asd child has a far better upbringing with a older Sen sibling. Very sure of that.

No I don't belive sharing out SNkids would increase understanding. I denial is such a powerful thing. I can't say much more than that.

But surely there would be still " God only gives Sen kids to special parents" as God would have a hand in the allocation?

But it wouldn't be God allocating children, would it? It would be the state. It'd be a lot easier for people to speculate about how the system's corrupt or rigged than go "oh, it must be God's will" or "well, it's random chance".

Jesus Christ! I have just re-read this twice.

I think that's a great idea, Maryz. No one can sit on their arse thinking "bad parent" when it's nothing like that. Swap 'em about regularly, and that would have another benefit - as a parent you know you'll get some sleep in about 7 years.

I's thinking about the mechanics of the first allocation, though. You give birth. Baby would presumably have to be whisked off straight away otherwise there's ahuge risk of parent/child bonding. So do you envisage a Government nursery full of new borns awaiting their allocation? You can't just swap them about within the ward, after all.

So the state will know at birth which kids have SN?

If that's true why it has taken them years and years to tell me?

Even I didn't know until 18 months that something wasn't quite right.

There is no genetic for asd.

That's a fair point, Maryz.

I know these things aren't always as black and white as that. I know a few people who did everything "right" when pregnant and still had a child with the sort of SN that's a lot less likely if they are very careful during pregnancy.

The point I was - obviously clumsily - trying to make was that in the OPs scenario, I think some people would be a lot more likely to assign blame for conditions that may be more likely if bad choices are made, rather than just accept it as bad luck.

Actually yes, definitely. I think as a nation we should do this just for the craic.