Children Should Be Raised By the State

1. Cultural Unity There have been a lot of social experiments done in the past that sought to obtain cultural unity " the problem emerges with what you are to do with the people that don"t fit into the homogenous society that the particular government of the day wants to propagate. Nazi Germany did their best to create a homogenous society by taking out all the black sheep, Catholics, Homosexuals, Jews and those with mental disabilities. You do not make a strong society by making sure that everyone is the same, but ensuring that everyone is accepting of the diversity in their neighbour. The state care model that has been proposed still appears to be an institutional one, but with shinier playground equipment and a higher care giver to child ratio. I will not argue against the benefits of children having access to pre schooling in their earlier formative years, as these studies provided by my opponent will be based on these children coming from, and going back to a loving home each and every day with a continuity of primary care givers. It is also based on children having the first infant years in close contact with their own parents. It is a little bit presumptuous that children would receive care from the same care givers each and every day. Staff turnover rates in early childhood education have been found to be around 30%. (1) This would mean, between different shifts, staff allocation to different children and this turnover rate, children would experience a wide variety of care givers. Even if they were able to make a strong connection to a child, all this work would be undone as within a period of a couple of years they will have left that organisation/city/country/profession. 2. Brotherhood Although my opponent states that state care would be small and intimate, in this argument about brotherhood it suggests that the small family unit would be supplanted by a much larger homogenous one. I don"t believe this debate to be on two fronts " i.e. both whether the state care is optimal, or what model of state care would be optimal " in the latter case there appears to be some confusion on what model my opponent is suggesting. In the studies that I referenced earlier it was found that in settings where there were many children who were not getting the attention they deserved they often developed anti-social behaviour in order to get some one on one attention from their caregivers. This concept of brotherhood will more likely develop into one of fierce competition amongst a large body of children for a relatively small number of care givers " with the loud, confident and disruptive children getting the bulk of the attention, leaving many growing up slipping through the cracks. 3.Half way there Children may spend about half their waking day at school or travelling to and from school, but it is overly simplistic to assume "half" the job is done. Schools are designed to primarily educate, not to provide unconditional love, emotional support and affection. In their "after school" lives state raised children would not have the luxury of having barriers between their two worlds. Issues at school will spill into their "home" life as their class mates and family mates would be one in the same. A case of bed wetting becomes infinitely more alarming when all your peers know all about it. 4.More Hours for Adults Funnily enough, adults want to have kids, despite the late nights, snotty noses and dirty nappies it is one of, if not the most rewarding undertakings one can have as an adult. This is not to say that you can"t have a fulfilling life without children, but most adults choose to have families and they do so voluntarily. As we have seen the average age of women getting pregnant has risen as they delay child rearing. This suggests that they have pursued a career, have taken lots of time to themselves and have travelled the world. Yet they still opt to bring a wee child into the world as all of these things do not satisfy them fully. 5.Economics & Birth Rates This system and argument proposed makes no logical sense " my opponent states that by having the state raise your baby you can then do whatever hedonistic and selfish thing you like with your added time and money. That is unless of course you want to spend this time having and raising your own family. When given a choice and adequate support mothers will not give up their children. Adoption rates are falling in the western world to an extent that childless couples are having to adopt from third world countries. Mothers do not give up their babies lightly and would prefer not to have them if that is the end result. The pain of loss would exceed any social benevolence they would feel 6. No More Bad Parenting There are indeed bad parents, because humans are fallible. There are also bad teachers and care workers. In addition to the advantages of the genuine love and affection that parents show to their children, the other real benefit is that they love their children more than life itself and will sacrifice their time, money, and own personal desires to ensure that their children have the best start in life. This is not the case for teachers and child care workers. Yes they can be very professional in what they do, but at the end of the day it is only a job and their ultimate responsibility is to themselves rather than each individual child they care for. They can resign, be sacked, and be transferred to another area. One of the worst things a parent can do is abandon their child, and with state run child rearing, this is an absolute certainty. In my first round I did state that procedures would be put in place to reduce the risk of child abuse " This would work to reduce the rate of child abuse within an institutional setting " this does not mean it would make child abuse rates less than what they are within traditional nuclear families. In addition, depending upon the structure, ages and sexes contained within an institutional setting there may be increased risk of children suffering from sexual abuse from their fellow "brothers and sisters". 7. Decrease in Social Stigma: My opponent is in one breath suggesting taxing those that have too many children, yet also saying there will be less social stigma. If you are a woman who is having lots of babies and do not have the resources to pay for any taxes that are payable you would be stigmatised quite quickly. The same could be said for a childless couple who are not pulling their weight for the state in keeping the populate rate at replacement level. The stigma"s will still be there, but based on a different set of criteria. 7.Unfulfilled adult lives. There is a very real difference between rearing your own children and the thought of rearing someone else. Being a teacher or a child care worker is a totally different occupation than being a mother or a father. There is little sense in denying a mother or father the opportunity to raise their own child, whilst at the same time offering the chance to look after someone else"s offspring. If we often cannot trust the government to provide adequate health care, spend our taxes wisely and provide welfare for the most vulnerable in society " why would we even consider offering up our first born to them? Conclusion: Children brought up in institutionalised settings display an increased rate of developmental and behavioural problems Early childhood education has shown to be beneficial to children that are brought up in traditional small families Adults are restricted in the ways in which they are allowed to raise children All citizens are denied a close family as they age Mothers will place their own risk of personal loss above that of the wider social good The economy and birth rate would collapse New stigmas would emerge as woman do not comply with state dictated edicts (1) http://www.childresearch.net...