We are working under different assumptions, it seems. I assume that if, for example, Lash fleshcrafts little Amanda to Str 5, that would mean that Amanda is a peak human toddler. Not someone with a theoretical peak human strength where she can lift half a ton over her head. Mechanically this would be represented (in my opinion) with a "toddler" flaw which applies difficulty adjusters and dice removers to many situations. Or just imposes caps on how many dice baby Amanda can have in different atrtibutes (like, I can see strength being capped at 1 or 2, and stamina too).Bro the babies would hurt themselves. They are learning the dangers of the world and giving then a body builders strength will lead to massive pain and shit.
You are also basically arguing (at least as I am reading it) that it's better that the child is less physically well because it's easier on the parent to prevent them from harming themselves. That's true, but definitely not the best option in terms of the child reaching their theoretical maximum potential.
This is internally inconsistent. You cannot propose that Strength 5 means "theoretical peak strength of an adult human" at the same time as arguing that stamina 5 is "theoretical peak stamina / toughness of a toddler". No, in this assumption, baby Amanda would be as tough as possible for an adult human.If you drop a metal chair bigger than they are on a person, they would be hurt. Stamina doesn't make them bigger and the chair would outmass the baby. Or it could be something heavier like a bookshelf.
It's not about being attacked. It's about her being able to fully reach her potential (or what potential we can give her). It also doesn't cost us additional AP.We can arrange for her to get training when she is older from someone we trust rather than burn AP on it ourselves. What makes Amanda as valuable to attack as a member of Cauldron who we are publicly politically protecting and a memeber of?