Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
I am not sure if it matters if it is 2011 or 1911.
In an ideal world a child should be raised by his parents, rather than strangers.
Why is it so hard to agree with?
And I am not sure how you can say there is no detriment to the child whatsoever if he is raised by strangers. Why is that more ideal, in your view, than raised by blood?
If the child is happy, you don't see a problem? What young child would rather be with strangers rather than his parents?
|
So I take it you disagree with adoption too?
Blood is best is such a strange notion in civilised intelligent species, as we act far more with thought than say instinct which is all that would cause you to protect your own DNA.
There are schools of thought that children who are sent to daycare and have different babysitters actually develop far better social skills and become happier, or even more successful as a result of that.
Just look at the poor social development of most home-schoolers for obvious indication of this.
A good upbringing has little to nothing to do with how much time the actual parents spend with the children, and everything to do with how they are being looked after.
If parents are leaving young children alone, or letting children play on the streets way into the night, this is wrong yes. If they carefully select babysitters, day care then it is just the same, and in some cases better.
You have to pass exams and government inspection to work with children, you don't need a license to get pregnant and be a parent.
Yes the system fails sometimes, but we only know this because it is so heavily advertised, thousands of children unhappy with their own blood parents treating them bad, but not bad enough for social service to get involved will go undetected all the time.