ForumGarden

I do, as it happens, have an alternative. It's to remove all children from their parents at birth and have them all brought up in State crèches. I think that would be a far more effective way of raising responsible citizens.


I cannot believe that you suggested this Spot. Is this really your recommendation? You do realise just how open such children would be to abuse and manipulation, don't you?

Not in a carefully constructed private enterprise child-rearing company. I'm quite certain such an enterprise, with minimal changes in the law, would be significantly safer for children than current home rearing by parents provides and would produce far better educated, more thoughtful and balanced adults by the end of their stay.

spot;1055251 wrote: Not in a carefully constructed private enterprise child-rearing company. I'm quite certain such an enterprise, with minimal changes in the law, would be significantly safer for children than current home rearing by parents provides and would produce far better educated, more thoughtful and balanced adults by the end of their stay.


I have not as yet seen any evidence showing that these establishments provide better safety or educational facilities. Eton, or Harrow and the like, maybe. But then we are talking about a different class of pupil.

Further, since the child carries genes from its parents, it is very important that it has a close relationship with them up and until the time of adolscence. This is very important in determining many characteristics within the child which will have less chance of being cultivated to their full potential. There are still many characteristics which cannot be copied from text books.

On top of this, over the years, there have been cases of abuse at these establishments.

I don't think a a carefully constructed private enterprise child-rearing company. exists as yet. I'm quite sure they could be designed and be utterly abuse-free in consequence. Family homes notoriously aren't.

As for expressing a personality because you're brought up by someone with a close genetic match, that works both ways. Yes you bring out the good bits but you definitely bring out the bad as well. There are lots of orphans who have become wonderful adults.

spot;1056215 wrote: I don't think a a carefully constructed private enterprise child-rearing company. exists as yet. I'm quite sure they could be designed and be utterly abuse-free in consequence. Family homes notoriously aren't.



As for expressing a personality because you're brought up by someone with a close genetic match, that works both ways. Yes you bring out the good bits but you definitely bring out the bad as well. There are lots of orphans who have become wonderful adults.


No, I don't think such a company exists. I don't think one will. The element that needs to be kept out of such an instititution is the human element. This is the element that is the source of child abuse.

While it is true that children have suffered at the hands of their own families and possibly more so in the extended family, they have also suffered at the hands of those who were responsible for children in institutions such as orphanages. But your statement that family homes are 'notoriously' not 'abuse free' suggests that the great majority of families are not safe for children. It is a rather sweeping statement that must surely indict almost everyone here on this forum, including myself, who have children, let alone the rest of the world.

I think that a different approach is needed. I would suggest that those who want to have children should be required to undergo formal instruction and acquire a certificate. The genes of the parents should be examined for suitability when they apply for formal instruction.

Institutions should be reserved for those children born to women or parents without the required certificate or for those children for whom, either because of some psychological trauma, or perhaps where the parenting skills have not worked, need to be removed from the parents.

I do not believe in eugenics as such as I believe that nature 'knows' best in general. But I believe we can do much to protect our children without resorting to the exclusive use of institutions. The compassion of the parents for their child is something that institutions cannot necessarily replicate and is vitally important for the child as well as having parents that share its gene make up.

Institutions cannot replace or replicate this natural compassion. Without it, the children will seek their biological need by other means and this would leave them vulnerable to propoganda.

With institutions, there is the possibility of 'normalization' rather than the development of individual qualities. Who would be responsible for applying the techniques of cultivation? The whole concept is open to manipulation.

I've said that no such company yet exists. There's no legal framework for a court to appoint a company as the legal guardian of a child, for one thing. I said the law needed tinkering.

You're inventing the sort of company you foresee while ignoring the equally possible view I have in mind. I tell you that it's entirely possible to guarantee no sexual molestation of children within that environment and I mean it. If you want the thread taking down that path I could explain quite simply how to achieve it but the essence of it lies in continual physiological computer monitoring of every child and alarm systems, together with room monitoring and personal location tracking on site. A little imagination ought to fill in the details.

Similarly you insist that children would be normalized and I agree that if the systems employed tended toward normalization then the company would end up doing just that. The whole point is that a private enterprise company can apply an explicit objective of individuation and achieve it to the greatest potential of each child within its care. These matters are measurable. These competitive companies can be rewarded for success in those areas. That's what private enterprise is good at.

Eugenics, to me, is a matter of selective death. That's the implication out of the first half of the last century, that's what the word conjures up. What I'm suggesting has no connection with that. Grading people into groups by certification and confiscating one group's children is a dreadful discrimination on that group however you define it. I'd aim at non-discriminatory laws.

As for current levels of abuse during family upbringing, my own informed guess is that fewer than half of all children leave home without experiencing abuse either in the home or while under parental guardianship. I would concede that the proportion may be falling for abuse at school but that has nothing to do with who's bringing the child up, that's to do with reporting procedures finally existing instead of a policy of never tell.

spot;1056285 wrote: I tell you that it's entirely possible to guarantee no sexual molestation of children within that environment and I mean it. If you want the thread taking down that path I could explain quite simply how to achieve it but the essence of it lies in continual physiological computer monitoring of every child and alarm systems, together with room monitoring and personal location tracking on site. A little imagination ought to fill in the details.






Indeed, I think a thread devoted to this is a good idea. I notice at the moment that it seems to be only you and me arguing this subject. Maybe more might contribute if it were in its own thread.

I certainly think that the subject is worthy of debate.

I will withhold my response to this post in lieu of a thread. As this is your 'baby' (sorry about that:)), perhaps you would do the honours.

OpenMind;1056298 wrote: I will withhold my response to this post in lieu of a thread. As this is your 'baby' (sorry about that:)), perhaps you would do the honours.
There you are. One thread, on topic.

spot;1056302 wrote: There you are. One thread, on topic.


I'd love to know how you do that.

This is your statement to me: You're inventing the sort of company you foresee while ignoring the equally possible view I have in mind. I am going to 'go away', as it were, and think about my arguments that children should be raised by families. Would you present your arguments that children should be raised by institutions?

Hello again, can I enter this debate please or is it reserved for you two?

OpenMind;1055751 wrote: I have not as yet seen any evidence showing that these establishments provide better safety or educational facilities. Eton, or Harrow and the like, maybe. But then we are talking about a different class of pupil.

Further, since the child carries genes from its parents, it is very important that it has a close relationship with them up and until the time of adolscence. This is very important in determining many characteristics within the child which will have less chance of being cultivated to their full potential. There are still many characteristics which cannot be copied from text books.

On top of this, over the years, there have been cases of abuse at these establishments.


are you suggesting that Eton or Harrow are safer and better educated than any other schools? I know im off topic her but i just wondered

only1?;1098004 wrote: Hello again, can I enter this debate please or is it reserved for you two?


anyone can come in.

only1?;1098004 wrote: Hello again, can I enter this debate please or is it reserved for you two?


only1, you don't need anyone's permission to enter a debate. Post away.:-6

kazalala;1098035 wrote: are you suggesting that Eton or Harrow are safer and better educated than any other schools? I know im off topic her but i just wondered


I have reread my post that you kindly quoted and, no, I'm certain that I was not making any such suggestion about Eton or Harrow. In fact, I was showing that I'm ignorant on the matter.

OpenMind;1098049 wrote: I have reread my post that you kindly quoted and, no, I'm certain that I was not making any such suggestion about Eton or Harrow. In fact, I was showing that I'm ignorant on the matter.


oh ok

Why thank you OpenMind I was just being polite.

I just read today that another child has dies at the hands of his parents the 2nd in as many weeks which has again thrown me back to the thoughts I had over the baby p case. I started to read this thread and your opinions are very thought provoking.

I felt that it seems crazy that we are tested and have to be qualified to do almost everything that requires any level of responsibility yet anyone can have a child and it seems be left to raise it without 'enough' supervision.

When I say that its even difficult to quantify what would be needed to prevent the cases we are hearing about from happening without tying your mind up in knots!

I felt that the idea of screening and assessing an individuals ability to have and raise children would be a good idea, but and then this is a big but....If that happened then I certainly would not exist as my mother would never have passed that sort of test.

So as much as I want to rid them of the right to bring babies into the world and fail them how can we deny anyone the right??

Im afraid to say that I cannot agree that separating all children from their parents to be brought up factory style could ever work. Even if those responsible didnt abuse the children what about the children themselves? There is enough damage caused by bullying etc and the likes of James Bulgers killers were so young.

Its a wonder anyone has children when you can cause yourself to fear everything that may happen to them....

Sorry for rambling, I need to get back to work!!! lol

Being a parent should be perceived as a privledge.....not a right. I know...I know..........it is true that anybody can conceive and produce children. Even people who don't want to be parents have children. Even people who are not ready for the responsiblity have children. Should we put these children in an institution.............and who decides?

Children need a home of their own. A safe place. A loving place. With a family to support and guide them. There is no typical home and there is no typical family...........not in this day and age.

These are only my humble thoughts on this subject. I can provide no links or footnotes or intelligent quotes. I speak from the heart.

It is a complex issue, I think. I have barely begun the research I need to do to argue my case. You have made some valid points IMO.

Your point that you would not exist is emotive. However, those that do not exist now do not know this or they are not aware that they do not exist. Plus, you do exist and nothing is going to change that until you die.

You are right in suggesting that the tests I recommend would be difficult to quantify. But it can be done by selecting the right parameters.

I could go on, there is much more to be considered. I am going to resist the temptation as I really want to research this first. If I ever get the time.

spot;1055251 wrote: Not in a carefully constructed private enterprise child-rearing company. I'm quite certain such an enterprise, with minimal changes in the law, would be significantly safer for children than current home rearing by parents provides and would produce far better educated, more thoughtful and balanced adults by the end of their stay.




My question to you , Do you have any children if so would you sent you child / children to this place you speak of ? If not why not ?:(

along-for-the-ride;1098070 wrote: Being a parent should be perceived as a privledge.....not a right. I know...I know..........it is true that anybody can conceive and produce children. Even people who don't want to be parents have children. Even people who are not ready for the responsiblity have children. Should we put these children in an institution.............and who decides?

Children need a home of their own. A safe place. A loving place. With a family to support and guide them. There is no typical home and there is no typical family...........not in this day and age.

These are only my humble thoughts on this subject. I can provide no links or footnotes or intelligent quotes. I speak from the heart.




Amon

OpenMind;1098071 wrote:

Your point that you would not exist is emotive. However, those that do not exist now do not know this or they are not aware that they do not exist. Plus, you do exist and nothing is going to change that until you die.

You are right in suggesting that the tests I recommend would be difficult to quantify. But it can be done by selecting the right parameters.


Well as I said, If my mother had been put through tests then she would not have been allowed to have kept me and yet now I am an adult I would not have wished for any other mother than her, even though it was a difficult childhood and I did have to go into care she still provided everything I needed and more.

That is the point though, I feel if I had to have stayed in care any longer than I did I would have been worse off than I was after I returned to my mother. Theres a very difficult balance to strike between the benefit of a blood parent being the one to raise a child, maybe not as well provisioned as a care home but in care there is no blood bond to anyone - you are alone.

Its the physical violence however that is the key, and the monitoring of the voiceless child should be more vigorous as they have no way of telling anyone of their predicament.

fuzzy butt;1098225 wrote: spot sounds to me like you're looking for clones rather than individual human beings brought about and up by individual enviroments. Don't fret though, we already have the institutionalized babysitting services.

Openmind I've never abused a child in my care in all the years I've cared for children. If there would be any abuse to children in "the child rearing company " it would be the taking away of their right to individuality and free thought. One can easily have a different perspective to a familys' upbringing ..........but it's not so easy within a institution.




Who would allow you to takecare their Child . What Their Name I Want To Report Their Butt, Right Away .

only1?;1098237 wrote: Well as I said, If my mother had been put through tests then she would not have been allowed to have kept me and yet now I am an adult I would not have wished for any other mother than her, even though it was a difficult childhood and I did have to go into care she still provided everything I needed and more.



That is the point though, I feel if I had to have stayed in care any longer than I did I would have been worse off than I was after I returned to my mother. Theres a very difficult balance to strike between the benefit of a blood parent being the one to raise a child, maybe not as well provisioned as a care home but in care there is no blood bond to anyone - you are alone.



Its the physical violence however that is the key, and the monitoring of the voiceless child should be more vigorous as they have no way of telling anyone of their predicament.


fuzzy butt-Openmind I've never abused a child in my care in all the years I've cared for children. If there would be any abuse to children in "the child rearing company " it would be the taking away of their right to individuality and free thought. One can easily have a different perspective to a familys' upbringing ..........but it's not so easy within a institution.




Individuality and personality would be traits easier to quantify than compassion. What I personally would hope to be able to do is to detect those would-be parents that would abuse or harm their children. I would hope to prevent an elitism out of parenting. A practical application of any model would be made further difficult by money. I know that lots are born into affluent families as much as into poor families.

OMG Spot!!! Ok now that I got that off my chest I will respond like a grown up. :wah:

Where would the love come from? Children need love? Where would the family history come from, the family beliefs, ethics, individuality??? Or family traditions? Geeze what would ever happen to the parents after the child is put into the "cell" many would be so distraught you will have a planet of sobbing, depression riddled zombies.

What an awful thing to think about the joy of parenting being taken away...... Ugh Spot I don't think we need to raise our children like little tin soldiers there is plenty of time for that when they hit the corporate world.

And then what later when these tin can kids go out into the big bad world, they all think the same? Or are they hand picked and guided in different directions? And who decided who would do what.....

Hey this is sounding like a hutterite colony.... No way.

Oh Spot nice try.:-3