Retos y propuestas

Instilled into most human beings and embedded in their psyche, just as with almost every other animal upon the face of the earth, is the instinct to both bare children and to raise them in the best way they can; the ability to love them and even the willingness to die for them if necessary.

In essence to reproduce and protect their young which isa species global instinct that exists for the sole purpose of sustaining the population of the species in which it inhabits.

To our young, this may not necessarily seem to be the case as they are probably more interested in copulating with one another and generally just having a, ‘good time’. It should be understood by them however, that the reason why they want to copulate with one another is to satisfy their natural desire to procreate. The reason why sex seems to be their primary goal is that naturally, it is. Without this desire, the human species would have died out the moment it began along with every other animal species on the planet. Which is why this instinct is more powerful than any other instinct that we have in our makeup?

To understand the great power this instinct has over us, we only have to consider the blindingly obvious facts around us in our everyday lives. The success of the sex industry, of every

advertisement on television, magazine or any other medium that depicts a physically attractive male, female or child, the leisure industry and so on is rooted in the pull of this powerful desire.

The fashion and cosmetic industries, the nightclubs and the cosmetic surgeon, the prostitute and the Social Worker…. There is hardly any industry that is not affected or needs to take into account the pull this instinct has on the human being.

As a family man, I not only see the prospect of raising children as important, but next to understanding the universe around us, probably the only thing we can do with our lives that actually means anything in the, ‘big scheme of things‘. Which is probably why I have six

children; a number that in this day and age is regarded as an, ‘awful lot’, of children for someone living in the richer west to conceive.

I understand that many that read this book will not feel this way, but they should understand that the majority of humans fall into my category and choose to sacrifice themselves for the sake of baring and raising their young. I am therefore speaking to the majority rather than the minority.

The majority will at some times naturally wish to settle down and have a family. Unfortunately, due to idealism and selfishness, many relationships do not survive and they get divorced. I believe however, that once children are born into a relationship that they are the responsibility of the couple and they should try and sustain the relationship for as long as they can in the interests of the child or children.

Any arguments in the mean time should occur away from earshot of the child or children. Only once every stone has been turned and every avenue of reconciliation has been perused can forgiveness for the failure of the relationship be considered. Anything less than almost complete self sacrifice for your children will be considered as failure on your part.

If you believe nothing else in this book, believe that a child needs their father as well as their mother. A father brings a balance into the family that a woman cannot provide due to her nature.

Children are growing up without a proper balanced point of view and it tears me apart that this is all happening because of feminism and selfishness on the part of the parents. Of course some of the blame for this failure of our society to see that its children are raised correctly falls squarely

on the shoulders of men. Butthe majority of the blame is on feminism and society. The law is trapped in the past when the women of my mothers’ era were the ones that were the main carers of the children. Now many are more interested in their own enjoyment and the fathers are left homeless, penniless and without the children they love. The swimming pools and parks are packed with single fathers grabbing their right to see their children on weekends. Their ex partner is meanwhile seeing another man. A person that the child may have difficulty accepting as a futureparent. The mother starts poisoning the children’s minds against their father and puts the new boyfriend before the children. The fathers too can become selfish. Sooner or later they take on another partner and the new women in his life will often pressure him to drop the interests of his former family for the interests of her and his new family. All too often the man will accept this and turn his back on his children for the hope of a better relationship. It’s all a very sad affair, and we deserve everything we get when our children grow up with little respect for us or them. This leads to the cycle continuingand their children fail to be able to maintain steady relationships. If we do not stop this cycle, then I do not hold too many hopes for our future.

In third world countries it is not unusual to have large families as the mortality rate is so high and people need large families to care for them in their old age. Nature therefore drives them to,

’cover their odds’, and have more of them. This desire to have children at times of human difficulty is not unusual. During wars and at any time when species numbers run low or when living becomes more difficult or dangerous;the birth rate is known to soar. The focus on the individual is lessened as life becomes, ’cheaper’, and instinct kicks in. Women become more ready to bear children and men can always be relied on to play their part.

What defines the sex of a child ?

There is the question as to what determines the sex of the unborn child. There is of course the scientific fact that the dominant of the two genes responsible for sex determination determines the sex of the child. However, there has also been studies that alter the standard 105 female births to 100 male births ratio has mysteriously altered shortly after wars to a higher percentage, -around 10 percent-, of male births. It has also been shown in a study of parentage in the

hierarchy of the evangelical church that people higher in the church hierarchy are more likely to have male children than female. It has also been demonstrated that dominant larger females are more likely to have male children than less dominant smaller females.

In certain species of birds such as the blue tit, where we now know that birds can see bands of ultraviolet light and that certain male birds are far more, glowing, and therefore more attractive to the female bird. That these glowing birds are far more likely to father male children than,

‘less attractive’, non glowing bird. This presumably is so that the male birds are more likely to succeed in fathering grandchildren then offspring of less attractive male birds. Though these theories fail to explain just how the mother determines the sex of the child in accordance with the mate and the environment the mother is in. It has been suggested that the testosterone levels in the mother, which rises in times of stress, -whilst it falls in times of stress in the male-, such as in times of war, the male genes are more prone to success in the raised testosterone levels in the mothers womb at war time. This can also account to the dominant females’ higher testosterone levels.

Another factor to take into consideration is that males tend to produce children of the same sex.

Two of my uncles for example have produced all female children and one has produce all male.

There are exceptions to this of course but I would like to highlight this as a tendency.

The last theory I would like to produce on the spiritual line is a theory suggested by the Tibetans.

They maintain that when a couple copulate and the insemination is about to take place. The soul that is about to enter the egg and to become the foetuses life force, surveys the souls of the two individuals, chooses which of the two parents it prefers and hence adopts their sex. I have tested this theory on which of the partners in my family I consider to be the, ‘better person’, and I find that the theory holds up very well. Perhaps this would be a theory that someone should take up just to see if a survey can confirm or deny this as factual.

The Constitution of a Child

My father always maintained that children were solely the product of the parents’ genes as he was inherently materialistic and took the scientific point of view as an all encompassing fact. I have always disagreed with his point of view; obviously I am not denouncing the factual evidence behind genetic science. Quite clearly the advancement of modern science in this area has been quite spectacular in recent years. The production of cloned sheep, in-vitro fertilisation and the mapping of the human genome are some of the advancements that immediately spring to mind, bringing with them an equally spectacular explosion of moral dilemmas in their wake.

My argument with my fathers and the scientific communities’opinion is that it appeared to be incomplete. The genetic theory alone does not explain many facts that occur in the natural world as well as in our own species. Genes do not explain the amazingly complex instinct that many animals as well as weexpress. They do not account for behaviour patterns that miraculously appear as if from nowhere and the fact that a Childs personality may differ markedly from either of the natural parents. Genetics alone fails to give us the, ’whole picture’, it is an incomplete explanation and therefore cannot be viewed as the entire truth as a direct result.

I maintain that each human being is made up from point of birth of three distinctly separate parts.

I am talking of course of a child consisting of the elements of mind, body and soul. Elements that are fused together like the three leaf clover, the three leaves being both an inseparable and essential part of the expression of the whole.

Only by accepting that children are made up of these separate units can explain the dilemmas that are failed to be explained by scientific theory. How two children in the same family, and who are brought up virtually identically, can be so different in character? How instinct and behaviour patterns can be transferred from generation to generation. How twins, even when separated at birth, can lead such extraordinarily similar life patterns when they are compared years later etc.

It is the simple fact that, the evidence available to us can only ever be truly explained by the existence of a phenomenon beyond our current perception, and for arguments sake the

acceptance of a soul’sexistence, that confirms its existence as fact. Evidence emerging in front of us such as this means that it should take a smaller, 'leap of faith-, in order for us to accept the possibility of a soul’s existence.

Once we accept the existence of a separate soul that is place within our child at the moment of

conception, we begin to realise that this process is completed without our consent and beyond our control. It is then that we realise that the potential of a child and the onus of responsibility for the child’s potential outcomeis lessened. We can only work with the raw materials that we are given. We begin to realise that, upon the maturity of a child, only half of the child’s potential is realised by its nurture, the other half being reliant on its nature. This however, whilst in theory lessens our responsibility for our child’s outcome, we can never be totally blameless for not making the most of the raw material we are given to raise.

I would like to mention a little about healthy eating at this point. It is a common understanding at this time, because scientists have analysed foods into how much fat, carbohydrates, sugar, salt, roughage, energy value and calories etc. that they have decided which food are good for you and which ones are not. It is a common conception that, ‘you are what you eat’, and hence have come up with recommended daily allowances we should take in each day. This has led to schools banning foods which are considered to be unhealthy and many foods considered to be irresponsible to take into your system.

My problem with this line of thinking is that the theory does not take into sufficient account that we are all different. That each person’smetabolism is different, our activity levels are all

different and therefore our food requirements are all different. Two people can have exactly the same diet and yet there level of fitness can be entirely different.

Our bodies do not just tell us if we are hungry or thirsty. They also tell us if we require salt, sugar or any other particular food, a good example is that when a women is pregnant, she may have cravings for very unusual food groups. These cravings are there to let the women know that this food is required to keep both her and the baby healthy and they are ignored at the peril of both.

I would certainly say that my own experience is that I have always allowed my children eat what they want, and, ‘touch wood’, I do not think that my children could be described as unhealthy in any way. They are all incredibly strong and one is due to compete in the Paralympics, even though she eats a great deal of chocolate, chips and virtually every other food group that is considered unhealthy for her; in fact I do not really know of anything that she eats that could be described as healthy by today’s understanding.

Don’t get me wrong, if my child was severely overweight then I would firstly look at the amount of exercise they are doing, (As many spend much of their time in front of the television or computer etc.), then I would be looking at their diet.

I also would say that although, when I was young, I could eat whatever I wanted and not put on an ounce, not that I am older and my metabolism has slowed, this is no longer true. I have to watch my weight like most others of my age. Scientists have recently discovered what they are calling, ‘The Fat Gene’, which backs up my argument that we all need different levels of sustenance.

My big problem with the current point of view is that, given that my children are healthy eating what is considered to be unhealthy food as they have been allowed to eat whatever their body has asked them to eat. Under different circumstances, if I listened to scientific advice as the majority of people do and fed my children in accordance with recommended levels. Would I have

inadvertently had malnourished my child and are millions of our children been malnourished when they listen to the current, ever changing, lines of advice given to them by the authorities.

Mixed up Families, Mixed up Emotions

When I met my partner, she had already two children by her previous marriage and my father could not see how I could see them as my own as clearly, -as far as genes were concerned-, they were not. But I never saw it that way, I just saw it as an opportunity to love and maybe, - if I was lucky –‘be loved back.

Today family life is far more complex than it used to be. In the past, a couple were married at a fairly young age;they considered the family interests to be beyond their own personal interests and as a result had a greater tendency to stay with their partner for the duration of the marriage.

Divorce was frowned upon by society and so was less likely to occur. Nowadays most families seem to end up splitting up and my situation is not unusual having two step children to care for and raise. In fact I have a half brother that is thirty years younger than I and my son used to change his uncles nappies. I put the situation down to my coming from a family of perverts, though in truth this situation is probably not that unusual.

However, I have never regretted the situation and do my best to make the most of it. As a step father, you have to be pretty perfect when bringing up your stepchildren, as there is always that danger of them saying, “You’re not my dad anyway”, or, “You don’t treat me the same as you do your natural children”.

I have also always maintained that it is the parents responsibility to give their children the best foundation in life that they can, moulding the best out of their child with whatever raw materials that child is given. One of their children may be academically inclined and another not. One child can be loving and not the others. One sociable and the others shy. We should not judge one with the other as each will have different gifts and shortcomings. One child should not therefore be judged as less fortunate than the other, and even if this is quite clearly the case, it is still not for us to judge, but just to support and guide each child in accordance with their

individual needs as best we know how. If you solely judge your child’s success or failure in terms of academic success, then you deservedly are likely to be disappointed. A person’s success is not solely defined by their academic success; they may also be successful in family life or their spiritual lives. They may experience personal happiness, or achieve sporting or artistic success to name but a few.

It is the parents’ responsibility and not the state to judge how best they wish to bring up their child as the onus is on them, the state rarely has as much love for the child as they and does not

It is the parents’ responsibility and not the state to judge how best they wish to bring up their child as the onus is on them, the state rarely has as much love for the child as they and does not