Do you believe periods of separation of child-parent/caregiver permanently damages the child?

[Braunwyn]

Look - more incorrect assumptions on your part. I think you are perhaps imposing motivations you might have and that's just not where I'm coming from.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Look - more incorrect assumptions on your part.

Using the same throw away mantra twice does not suddenly make it more accurate. My assumptions are fine. My evaluation of the state of the evidence was fine. My evaluation of the research paper you linked to at the start of the thread was fine.

Once again for anyone just joining the thread:

1) There was an original thread in which the OP indicated that she planned on taking a week or two vaction without her baby at some point after the birth when it became viable and safe to do so.
2) It was suggested that this choice could "harm" the baby in some way.
3) To date we have had no evidence at all to support this fear mongering assertion - except a vague attempt to shift the burdeon of proof by pretending I have to evidence that such a choice would NOT "harm" the baby.

If there is an incorrect assumption in there - and that is not just a throw away remark you wanted to lash out before running from the thread - I am all ears to hear what it is.

[Braunwyn]

You are willfully ignoring details like leaving the baby with relative strangers. You will not acknowledge that because you cannot argue it.

And I don't think most parents would require fear mongering to grasp this is a bad idea if it can be avoided. It's where common sense comes in.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You are willfully ignoring details like leaving the baby with relative strangers.

These are details you are appending AFTER the fact. I am ignoring nothing. This was your original claim which I am still trying to ask you to back up:

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

For a baby being away from his/her primary caretakers over night to several nights? Plenty. I linked a site not too long ago addressing this very issue. It's not good for baby.

There is nothing there about "strangers" or who the secondary caretakers are or were or would be. You simply declare outright that this is a problem.

Then when you were called on this you started to back pedal and dilute. You changed it from "over night to several nights" - into - "The potential effects of lengthy separations from primary caregivers."

When called on this yet further you then started to post studies which include concepts such as children being away from caregivers for several years - in fostor care - orphaned and more.

It seems the more and more I attempt to get you to support your ORIGINAL claim - the more you distance yourself from it and attempt to back up more dilute and gratuatous claims. All also without much back up or citations - coupled with a crass attempt to shift the burdeon of proof from your claim to people who are not buying it.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

And I don't think most parents would require fear mongering to grasp this is a bad idea if it can be avoided. It's where common sense comes in.

Fear mongering is asking parents to avoid or worry about something wtihout giving them a single reason to think they should avoid or worry about it. Just dark cloak and dagger ruminations on how it all "might" be bad even if we have no reason to think it is.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by monumentus

These are details you are appending AFTER the fact. I am ignoring nothing. This was your original claim which I am still trying to ask you to back up:

After the fact? These are her posts before I came along in that thread. From the OP-
" Makes me very sad. To think of this child styming my movements. Maybe I can leave them with DH's parents for our trips (I would like DH to come too on trips)"

"My DH's parents live in another country so they would not get to see the baby often. So I know it would be a huge joy to them to babysit whenever they can."

This was said from the get go in her thread as you are well aware. If the grandparents live in another country then they are going to be relative strangers to that baby. There is nothing after the fact about it.

There is nothing there about "strangers" or who the secondary caretakers are or were or would be. You simply declare outright that this is a problem.

Then when you were called on this you started to back pedal and dilute. You changed it from "over night to several nights" - into - "The potential effects of lengthy separations from primary caregivers."

I have not back peddled. I have expanded on my views and that's typical in conversations. My initial position is exactly the same as it is now. A lengthy separation is several nights. I used language like primary caretaker from the get go for good reason as well- so as to not imply only parents. Primary caretakers can be anyone- parents, nannies, grandparents, daycare workers, a neighbor. Anyone a baby has a trusted bond with.

I have no idea what a secondary caretaker is supposed to be.

It seems the more and more I attempt to get you to support your ORIGINAL claim - the more you distance yourself from it and attempt to back up more dilute and gratuatous claims. All also without much back up or citations - coupled with a crass attempt to shift the burdeon of proof from your claim to people who are not buying it.

All you are doing is ignoring the facts of the situation to reconcile your position, which is that it's A-ok to leave a baby with people who s/he is not bonded with (grandparents who live in another country say) so you can have a good time. On its face my gut tells me that's wrong. Experts in the field of child psych agree. The data to support is arguably wonky. I don't think that matters.

Fear mongering is asking parents to avoid or worry about something wtihout giving them a single reason to think they should avoid or worry about it. Just dark cloak and dagger ruminations on how it all "might" be bad even if we have no reason to think it is.

The accusation of fear mongering makes no sense when there is no reason to fear monger.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

After the fact?

Yes. After the fact. I do not mean after the fact of the OPs story. I mean after the fact of your original general claim about leaving children in particular. Do not mix the two up. I mean one not the other. You made a claim about periods of seperation and have been steadily diluting those claims since.

Many people in fact - like that OPs story - have one or two sets of grand parents who do not see a child often. And many people in fact - when they get together with those grand parents will be prone to allowing those grand parents alone time with the child for some hours - over night - or even a number of days.

And your contention is that there is some potential for harm or damage or something similar here. All I am doing is pointing out that you have not backed up such a contention at all. Except with a link to an opinion piece - and a study which had little or nothing to do with it at all.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I have not back peddled.

The steady dilution of your original claim which I just describe in my previous post is a back pedal indeed. This was not an "expansion" as your attempt at historical revisionism tries to put it. It was a dilution of the original claim.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

All you are doing is ignoring the facts of the situation to reconcile your position

I can not ignore what is not there. You have not presented ANY facts to back up your core claim on this issue. Until you present some - how can I "ignore" them?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

On its face my gut tells me that's wrong.

So your entire basis for this claim is your gut feeling? Wow. Just wow. And off the back of this you feel fine engaging in fear mongering against parents telling them not to do something that there is no reason to think is a bad thing to do at all.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Experts in the field of child psych agree. The data to support is arguably wonky. I don't think that matters.

Of course it matters. Cite the data and the actual peer reviewed studies by your supposed "experts" then. Or do you mean "experts" in the sense of - like you did before - cherry picking and linking to opinion pieces by people who have a few letters after their name?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

The accusation of fear mongering makes no sense when there is no reason to fear monger.

Who knows your motivation. I certainly do not claim to. But warning people of the harms of doing something without the first piece of evidence that there is any harm in doing it is - to me - nothing more than fear mongering.