I know I'm whining, but I wish corporal punishment had been criminalized a few decades earlier.

[Coventina]

Oh heck!

What am I saying?

I wish it had been encoded from the beginning of time that hitting kids is criminal.

It shouldn't hurt to be a child.

*sigh*

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. As a rule, I tend to think anything you do to a stranger

that results in criminal charges should likewise result in criminal charges if you do it to your own relatives, even your own children. You don't 'own' them. Once they take that first breath outside and are no longer connected to their mothers physically, they're autonomous human beings, even if they're dependent upon you.

You (hopefully) get arrested for physically assaulting a stranger with a tree branch ('switch'), so you should likewise get arrested for physically assaulting your own child in the same fashion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. strongly seconded. very well stated.

[Coventina]

3. Very good point.

And, now that I think about it:

Can we press criminal charges against Dr. James Dobson for advocating for spanking for decades?

My parents treated his book "Dare to Discipline" like an additional book of the Bible in our house.

[leftstreet]

4. +1

[Orrex]

5. That's why, as a rule, I don't change strangers' diapers

Because obviously what applies to strangers must also apply equally to a parent/child relationship.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Did you notice the part of my post that specified

'results in criminal charges'? It's legal to change a stranger's diapers given consent of either the stranger or their guardian, if incapacitated. In fact, in a clinical setting I have done so.

(Edited to change a paraphrase to a direct self-quote.)

[Orrex]

8. I never asked my infants' consent to change their diapers

So why should I have to ask the strangers?


My point is that the wouldn't-do-it-to-a-stranger argument is a questionable analogy. Your relationship with a stranger is fundamentally different from your relationship with your child, so analogies that depend upon the supposed equivalence are inherently flawed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Because you're already the legal guardian of your child AND

changing a diaper is not damaging to the child. Indeed, not changing a soiled diaper can actually cause harm. You're preventing harm, even as you would if you pulled the child (or stranger) out of the path of a speeding car. But if you then hit that stranger (or child) to 'teach them not to run into traffic', you're committing an assault.

Even with your own children, if they're minors, they can't give you legal consent to harm them. You can't commit incest with a minor and say 'It's ok, they consented'. Or punch your kid in the face on an elevator with video running, and get away with it because 'they consented'.

The only argument available to those who champion physical assault on children is one of degree, not type. They say it's ok to hit a child with 'a switch' or 'their palm', but most of them will admit it's not ok to punch the child in the face. That there's some magic line that divides criminal assault from 'discipline'.

[Orrex]

15. Everything you wrote there simply underscores my point

The analogy is dubious, so it doesn't support your argument.

The only argument available to those who champion physical assault on children is one of degree, not type.

I agree, and of course that's also the only argument available to anyone who advocates for punitive action in response to any infraction at all.

Downloading a stolen selfie should carry the same punishment as homicide, unless there's some magic line of distinction available to us.



By the way, I'm not arguing in favor of corporal punishment (which most states incidentally permit to some degree or another); I'm simply arguing against the use of a flawed analogy.

[kcr]

18. But one isn't talking levels of degree when comparing hacking with murder

There are differences in kind, there.

[uppityperson]

16. I change non-family adult's diapers often, yay for nurses who do what others won't.

And yes, it is legal for me to do so.

[Orrex]

19. Because consent has been obtained

Your work is commendable but separate from the issue here.

The analogy put forth is that since corporal punishment would be assault if inflicted upon a stranger, it must therefore be assault if inflicted upon a child. The assumes that one's legal relationship with a stranger is equivalent to one's legal relationship with one's own child, which is simply not the case. Therefore, any argument based on the flawed analogy is itself flawed.


Again, this is not an argument in favor of corporal punishment; it is a rejection of a flawed argument against corporal punishment.

[uppityperson]

25. Yet you were the one to bring up changing strangers diapers. Why bring it up if the analogy is not

not valid?

[Orrex]

35. And the analogy was put forth in reply #1

As a rule, I tend to think anything you do to a stranger that results in criminal charges should likewise result in criminal charges if you do it to your own relatives, even your own children.

By bring up diaper-changing, I was pointing out that the analogy is faulty, because one's relationship to a stranger is fundamentally different from one's relationship to one's own child.

I chose diaper-changing as an example, but there are many others. I couldn't, for example, summarily put you in the barber's chair and have your hair cut to my specifications, nor can I tell you what to eat, when to go to bed, or what clothes you must wear.

According to the analogy in reply #1, I have no authority to make those decisions for my children simply because I can't make those decisions for a stranger.


The analogy is flawed and should be rejected.

[hifiguy]

64. A most excellent point with which I totally agree.

But lotsa luck. The religulously insane would have a shitfit and fall in it if any such ban were ever proposed. They are big fans of not sparing the rod, and if a belief, however batty it may be, is based in "religion" it must be tolerated. Yeah, right.

[Romulox]

102. Basic parenting would be kidnapping, false imprisonment as to a stranger. So this test doesn't work.

[Android3.14]

7. Please keep your opinions out of my family

You have no right, and your ignorant judgement is unwelcome to people who value liberty, responsibility and the sanctity of choosing how to raise one's own family.
Infringing on a parent's right to raise their children is as vile as infringing on someone's right to an abortion.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Sanctity? In which religion is that right enshrined?

Is it the part about Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son, or Lot handing his daughters off as prostitutes to a mob that makes it 'sacred'?

[Android3.14]

23. That's just silly

As an agnostic, I of course meant "sanctity" with the secondary definition as "ultimate importance and inviolability."

A good example would be "We should protect the sanctity of a woman's choice in reproductive matters despite hypocrites who think only their opinion should be the determining factor of how we should or should not treat our offspring."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Once the child leaves the womb, it's another human being,

despite its dependence on adults. But your child could have mental retardation and be 30 years old and still need the state to step in to protect it from you if you beat it to 'discipline' it. Or lock it in a room all the time, or deny it food. If you abuse your children, it is not only the 'right' of the state to intervene, it is the duty. And, as well, in my state, for instance, it is my legal obligation as a licensed medical care provider to report even my suspicions of child abuse to the authorities so that they may investigate and see if you are 'treating your offspring' in a way that is illegal.

[Android3.14]

42. Sigh

What you suggest as examples of corporal punishment simply are not.
Of course, you voicing that last one regarding "responsibility" is just an example of how power corrupts. I'm sure police officers in Ferguson use that all the time to justify pulling someone over for DWB.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. That's the way the law is worded.

I can get my license yanked if I am shown to have seen any evidence of child abuse and not reported it. I'm pretty sure police in Ferguson won't be made unemployable in their field if they fail to pull over a black person.

[Android3.14]

56. I'm sure one can justify abusing authority in many ways

of course, that is not what you implied. You implied that you have the authority, and would use it, to report people for spanking their kids.

So let's ask a direct question and test your conviction. If a kid at the doctor's office were misbehaving and the parent swatted the kid on the butt (not with a stick, but with their hand, only once, just like many reasonable parents would do), would you report them for child abuse?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

57. I'm not implying anything.

I'm telling you outright that I will comply with the laws of my state, and report any child abuse I suspect or indeed witness.

That is not an 'abuse of my authority'. It is a legal requirement of my licensing.

Police are free to do as they see fit after I report. If they feel it's not worth bothering with, it ends there. If they feel it is worth dealing with, then it's probably an incident in which they feel laws have been broken.

[kcr]

11. Do you see that as an absolute right?

If not, where's the line?

[Android3.14]

33. Here's a start

http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/1809
“Spanking Children: Evidence and Issues” defines corporal punishment as “hitting a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intent to discipline without leaving a bruise or causing physical harm”

This seems reasonable, except I go further with the philosophy that I will smack my kid only once. The first swat is for the kid, but all the ones after that are for the parent.

[kcr]

63. Okay. But we aren't talking about one swat

And your one swat line isn't the same as another parent's. Their line might be 5 swats. And their swats might be harder. The problem is with where to put the line. And you don't get to just unilaterally and arbitrarily decide where that is because family rights. You don't have an absolute right to do as you see fit. Because family members, including your children, are human beings with rights of their own.

[Android3.14]

67. The problem isn't where to put the line

The line is already there, and spanking does not cross it. The problem is intrusive busybodies imposing their will on people to the point of despotic insanity. Just as you would never tolerate someone trying to force you to spank your kids, or force your children to undergo intrusive medical procedures just because someone thought it was the only moral thing to do, or even place tattoo numbers on their legs before sending them off to internment camps, a thoughtful person who values freedom recognizes that, within reason, how I raise my kids is
None.
of.
your.
fucking.
business.

[kcr]

68. Your children. Aren't. Your. Personal. Property.

Sorry. But they aren't. You don't get to decide that there is a line and that it will never ever move. You aren't the boss of all things forever and ever. Too bad. The problem is indeed not where to put the line. The problem is there isn't even a defined line to begin with. If spanking is against the law, too bad for you. You'll get prosecuted if you do it. And some day that just may happen because 40 other countries have already gone there. It's only a matter of time.

[Android3.14]

71. Just remember that attitude when they take your reproductive rights away

Straw man argument. Ding. No one said they were property.
Ding-ding. No one said that an individual decided the line, me or any other person.
Ding-ding-ding. No one ever claimed to be the boss of anything, much less "all things forever and ever."

So let's get to the meat of your claim - that there is no defined line.

There is and there are. For example, from the Delaware Code - "?The force shall not be justified if it includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: Throwing the child, kicking, burning, cutting, striking with a closed fist, interfering with breathing, use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon, prolonged deprivation of sustenance or medication, or doing any other act that is likely to cause or does cause physical injury, disfigurement, mental distress, unnecessary degradation or substantial risk of serious physical injury or death..."

Next statement - "If spanking is against the law, too bad for you." This is a meaningless statement and would be true for any circumstance, much like saying "If owning cats is against the law, then too bad for you." It strikes me as similar to saying, "Oh yeah!? Well, my can beat up your dad." How compelling.

41 countries ban spanking? Maybe. I looked it up as well and it looks like it is in the 30s out of nearly 200. Abortion is illegal in about the same number. Does this mean that we should ban abortion in the United States? No.

Almost all of your statements are either straw man arguments or have no meaning.

But you may be right about one thing. The more people feel entitled to intrude into the private lives of individuals, the more likely the government will further restrict individual rights, such as raising our own children or having access to abortion facilities.

And it may only be a matter of time.

[kcr]

72. I saw you making that false equivalency about abortion to someone else. It doesn't fly.

Having control of your own body is not the same as being able to control someone else's. It's that simple.

By the way, straw man argument doesn't mean simply an argument you don't agree with. The most misused phrase on the internet. Few ever use it correctly, though.

Too bad for you isn't a meaningless statement. I know you want to live free where laws don't touch you and you can do whatever you want to those you consider your property Too bad is the reality. People often cling fiercely to the old ways and fight change with all their might. But progress marches on. Too bad.

[Android3.14]

75. Please look up strawman argument

Oh heck, let me show you. A strawman argument is when you make a statement that you attribute to your opponent with which almost anyone would disagree, such as...oh..I dunno, "he thinks children are his personal property," or "my opponent wants to be the boss of all things forever and ever." Then you argue against the fake statement. Exactly like you did.

Ding-ding-ding.

The similarities between the debate on abortion rights and spanking are similar in many ways. They both evoke strong emotion. The questions impact issues of personal responsibility and liberty. Advocates for both use the infringement on personal rights as a defense against control. Advocates for control use the argument of a child's welfare to support the restrictions. Both are an intrusion into areas where the government has no business unless the practice crosses lines that law has defined.

And the biggest similarity is that people who are unhappy about spanking or abortion should both go jump in the lake. It's none of their business.

As far as your remarks regarding my motivations following the phrase "I know...", I can only point out that an argument originating from ignorance tends to end up where it began.

The question comes down to this - Should the government dictate how reasonable (look at that previous word) people should correct their children? The answer to that is, of course, no.

Following that is a much more interesting question.

Is a swat on the butt an unreasonable way to correct a child's behavior? At that point, it becomes a matter of parenting style, and the law means nothing. For example, suppose there was a ban on spanking. Just as abusive spouses find ways to torment their partners, even though domestic violence is against the law, so would an abusive parent find ways to torment a child.

I would suggest a better solution rather than putting forth little fascist intrusions into a person's private life, and one that respects the rights of everyone, is to promote the benefits of abandoning corporal punishment, providing reasonable alternatives to correcting misbehaving children, and giving guidelines to parents who wish to continue using corporal punishment so that their actions stay on the safe side of the line.

Extremism in any form is simply a poor choice.

[morningfog]

101. There is no safe side.

Why do you want so badly to defend child battery?

Feeling guilty as a parent?

[Android3.14]

104. No actual argument?

Once you start using insults, I guess that means you are unable to defend your opinion.

[morningfog]

105. I have given you many detailed arguments, some of which you have

not responded to. My opinion is solid, yours is shifty and weak.

It is clear to me you are not discussing this in good faith.

So long!

[treestar]

96. Society has made it everyone's business

if you cross the line into criminal behavior.

[Android3.14]

108. No argument there.

What's your point?

[treestar]

114. You keep saying it is no one's business.

This is not strictly true. You can no longer do whatever you want when it comes to childhood discipline, in that if caught, it could be considered offensive touching. Many states will have a discipline defense, but the court would decide whether the defense applied. Thus the idea it is not society's business is quite inaccurate. Once society recognized that child abuse was not something it was going to give a blind eye to, it became a societal matter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. No, it's not. Abortion is a right you exercise over your own body.

Children are not your own body.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. You don't have a right to assault anyone.

Not even your minor children.

[Android3.14]

27. Of course not

Of course, correcting my kids with a swat on the tuckus is assault about as much as saying a prayer before going to bed is contraception.

It's actually a question of hypocrisy. If it is wrong for a group of people to force their values onto a populace in regards to a person's reproductive choices, then it is wrong for a group of people to force their values onto a populace in regards to a person's choices in raising their own children.

[uppityperson]

36. Do you support female genital mutilation? do you support the right of parents to do that

as it seems that is what you are saying here. Bonus question, do you support the rights of parent to circumcize their male infants? And yes, shades of grey here (not the book).

[Android3.14]

39. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

That's like asking someone who defends vaccinations if they think the government has the right to lobotomize people.

Please refrain from asking questions with only the intent of annoying others.

Please.

[uppityperson]

44. I guess your answer to that is not, and that all values are not to be respected, it is ok to force

" for a group of people to force their values onto a populace in regards to a person's choices in raising their own children. "

Shades of gray

[morningfog]

85. Please refrain from posting here.

[Android3.14]

91. If you don't like the debate, don't read

For some folks, freedom means never having anyone disagree. The people in 1984 and This Perfect Day were so unified in what they new was right.
Those books were a painful lesson.
Wouldn't it be awful if the government could tell you what books you can or cannot give to your kids?

[morningfog]

92. Freedom means children not being hit by

their care givers.

As for this "debate," some positions are not worthy of serious consideration. And when a poster combines prideful ignorance with rudeness and offensive positions, they should expect pushback.

[Android3.14]

93. Why do 70-90 percent of US parents spank

Parental freedom to raise their kids in a reasonable fashion is easy to defend.

The anti-spanking argument goes like this: A parent should never engage in behavior that hurts his or her children. Spanking is a behavior that hurts children. Therefore parents should not engage in spanking their children.

So, the flaw in the argument becomes exposed when you replace the phrase "engage in spanking" with words such as "inoculate against disease", "receive dental care", "play with young pets who may scratch or bite", "learn to ride a bike", etc.

The only way to argue against this is to either change the premise or redefine the terms.

The real reason you are unhappy is that my arguments make sense, whereas your arguments are little more than cries of "What about the children!? What about the children!?" A tired argument that we have all heard repeatedly from the Christofascist arm of the Republican Party.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2014/04/29/spanking-may-be-more-common-than-parents-admit

Somehow I suspect you might mistake freedom with the right to force your opinions into other's private lives.

[treestar]

98. It will be forced on you

You can be arrested if there are witnesses.

It is forced on you like every other law.

You don't get to strike other people, regardless of who they are. Just because you are frustrated and cannot think of a civilized way to deal with another person gives you no rights whatsoever.

[morningfog]

100. Your arguments do not make sense.

They are absolutely asinine. Your problem is that you are looking at children as property and with ownership. You see this as having an effect on your ability to parent. That is your error.

A child's right to not be beaten had nothin to do with abortion or vaccines, no matter how pathetically you try to make it.

The "argument" against hitting children is actually just science based knowledge. I encourage you to rectify your ignorance. Hitting , even spanking, causes lower IQs and higher depression. It also leads to a continuation of the cycle of violence.

In the US, 75% of parents are still too lazy, too reactive and too stupid to acknowledge their failure in parenting. We all know, though, that a majority of Americans doing something is not indicative of rightness. 38 nations have banned corporal punishment and every nation of the world except the US and Samolia, have signed on to the UNs charter defining the rights if children.

Like other outdated, regressive and harmful practices the US still engages in, we are just stupid and stubborn, refusing to join modernity. Yet. We are getting there and will get there. One day hitting children will no longer be tolerated.

One last thing: you sure as shit are right about one thing. It is about the children. It is solely about the rights of children. When you stop thinking of children as objects and propety and start thinking of them as a person, you will understand.

[Android3.14]

107. Please stick to the argument

If my argument is asinine, then it should be easy to refute. Simply calling it stupid is an ineffective response.

I've never said children are property, and I certainly think otherwise. To think that removing a parenting method that as many as 90% of the parenting population uses would have zero impact on parenting is like thinking that removing air from tires would have no effect on drivers. Your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

It is a tactical error to call 75% of the parents in the U.S. lazy. It does little to advance the cause, and it is also inaccurate.

Regarding your "sure as shit" remark. I never said it was about the children. You said that, and that is the same argument that the Christo-fascists on the republican side use to place restrictions on women's reproductive rights.

My stance is that a government telling parents they cannot swat a kid's butt is an an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into people's private life and is an infringement of basic liberty.

[morningfog]

112. Lol! I refuted it repeatedly. You're a lost cause.

I'm done playing your game. Bye!

[treestar]

97. That question was uncomfortable?

You're the one making the analogy with reproductive rights.

In those cultures where FGM is done, it's the parents choice and none of your business - that's a better analogy than yours.

[Android3.14]

99. Actually, no

FGM is illegal, I agree it should be illegal, and it is incomparable to spanking. Spanking and abortion are legal.

I've never said that a parent should be able to do whatever they want to their kids. Trying to push that characteristic on someone is simply a provocation and does little to advance the discussion.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. The two aren't related.

Reproductive choice fundamentally is about personal autonomy. Now if you want to uphold your right to self-flagellate, that's parallel.

[morningfog]

84. That is some stupid logic. No, it isn't logic at all.

Your two issues are analogous, but not the way you seem to think. Both a woman and a child have a right to not have their bodice controlled by another person. It is about respecting an individual's physical self.

A woman has an a right to terminate her pregnancy. A child had a right to not be battered by their patent or anyone else.

[gollygee]

95. Two totally different things - in fact

both spanking and abortion are about bodily autonomy. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy even if she's pregnant and can decide whether to use her body for continuing a pregnancy or not. A child also has a right to bodily autonomy, and to hit them is to try to infringe on that.

[cali]

14. there is no sacred right of choosing how to raise one's own family.

sanc·ti·ty
ˈsaNG(k)titē/
noun
noun: sanctity; plural noun: sanctities

the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
"the site of the tomb was a place of sanctity for the ancient Egyptians"
synonyms: holiness, godliness, blessedness, saintliness, spirituality, piety, piousness, devoutness, righteousness, goodness, virtue, purity;
formalsanctitude
"the sanctity of St. Francis"
ultimate importance and inviolability.
"the sanctity of human life"
synonyms: inviolability;

the comparison to choice is absurd. You have no "sacred" right to abuse your children.

[uppityperson]

17. Do you really believe there should be no laws addressing treatment of children, even ones own?

[Android3.14]

28. Odd interpretation

Do you think the government should tell you what to feed your children for supper?

[uppityperson]

32. Not odd at all. Look at what you wrote, and answer my question first.

Infringing on a parent's right to raise their children is as vile as infringing on someone's right to an abortion.

No laws, no infringement on parent's right as to how to raise their children.


My apologies, indeed I overstated. Let me rephrase. Do you really believe there should be no laws addressing treatment of your own children? I erred in including all children, meant your own but typed too quickly. And please do not come back with a strawman question like you did last post (what to feed for supper).

[Android3.14]

38. Reasonable question

Of course there are limits.
http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/1809
“Spanking Children: Evidence and Issues” defines corporal punishment as “hitting a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intent to discipline without leaving a bruise or causing physical harm”

This seems reasonable, except I go further with the philosophy that I will smack my kid only once. The first swat is for the kid, but all the ones after that are for the parent.

What the OP suggests is an unreasonable intrusion to control reasonable behavior based on their misguided and rather uninformed opinion.

[uppityperson]

43. It is a difficult topic because it combines desire to do right with our emotional childhood memories

I was spanked as a child, a couple times way overly because of the times and my parents feeling they could not back down on the consequences they stupidly set. I hit my child twice. Once as an immediate response to inexpectedly being bit, once I hit them lightly on the palm with an electeical cord when they were persistedly going after electrical cords and and biting them. The first was an automatic reaction and yes, I felt awful afterwards. The other, electrical cord biting one, was after days of working with other ways, distracting, moving away, watching watching watching and because I was so concerned said child would electrocute themselves in that one moment my attention was elsewhere. Yes, my house was childproofed but everywhere in the world was not.

So, no bruises, agree for sure with memories of avoiding gym class for a wk are in my past. More than once is for the parent, interesting way of putting it. And it is ok to say you made a mistake in putting forth a stupid consequence.

Then there is also the difficulty of defining what is meant by the terms "spank" and related terms.

Thank you for the civil discussion.

[Android3.14]

46. I'd have approached at least one of those differently

The biting response I can understand, though when my kid bit me I just barked at him. As for the electrical cord, I just used time outs once the kid was able to move past the baby-proofing we did to our residence. In fact, in our home, we hit our kids for one reason only. The rule was that a kid would stay in time-out for twice as as many minutes as they were old, and they would receive one smack if they left the time-out spot (and have to restart time-out).

We hardly ever had to hit our kids.

[uppityperson]

55. It was well before time outs were possible. I used time outs when child got to that age

and it worked fairly well though with a hyperactive kid, had to figure out other ways to work around things. The electrical cord showed it was not a fun thing to chew but instead painful, without the electrocution factor, and was during crawling stage. Child avoided cords after that.

I've an acquaintance that believed in not warning their child about anything, let them discover it on their own. "Look out for the stickers" while picking blackberries got me a bad look and a lecture that I was never to say a thing like that again as it made it so the child did not learn on their own.

Some things are worth a warning, imo.

[Dorian Gray]

90. I have friends

who have the same philosophy. (The kids are aged 7 and 10) I gulped this summer while we were on vacation with them watching them push each other down the slide into the pool with nary a warning from their parents. I couldn't sit with them while they were down there as I spent the afternoon panicking on their behalf.

[uppityperson]

113. I told them I treat kids like other people, if I see you about to do something dangerous or

painful, in that case grab a branch with thorns onit, I'd say watch out or something. Not just let them get hurt as a learning experience. This doesn't mean hover over them, but just being nice.

[pipi_k]

54. Here ya go, kid...

This seems reasonable, except I go further with the philosophy that I will smack my kid only once. The first swat is for the kid, but all the ones after that are for the parent.

This one's for YOU!


So I'd like to ask parents who smack/hit/slap/whatever their kids if they ever stop and ask the kid afterward, "And so what did you learn from that?"


I got hit quite a few times as a kid.

Know what I learned?

1. Don't get caught doing things that will get me hit.

2. People who are bigger than I am are going to hit me if I don't do what they want me to do. Especially people who "love" me. So physical punishment = "love".

3. If I'm bigger than someone else and they don't do what I want them to do, then it's probably OK for me to hit THEM.



Has anyone ever really bothered to ask their kid(s) what lesson they learned from being hit?

[Android3.14]

62. Why no, I never asked my kid that question

How odd that you learned those lessons.
So you are telling us that you go around doing inappropriate things in secret, show your love with physical abuse and hit people who disobey you?

I know-I know, that's not what you meant, even though that is the direct implication of your words.

Granting that you don't hide inappropriate activity, hit those you love, or strike people who disobey you, then I'd suggest your supposed "lesson" was actually different than what you expressed in your post.

[moriah]

65. In certain circumstances, yes.

I think that if a doctor has ordered a specific diet for a child, that failing to follow that diet is medical neglect and yes should be criminal.

------

The thing is, many people vary widely on what they call "parenting styles". You have everything from attachment parenting where you don't even dream of slapping a toddler's hand away from something, because it stunts their brain's growth (proven fact). Then you have Michael Pearl and the "To Train Up A Child" crowd, that advocate horrific abuse as a valid, and even necessary, "parenting style".

So yes, I think the government has a duty to intervene when a person's "parenting style" crosses certain lines. The issue is defining where those lines are.

Like they say about torture.... "Besides being wrong, spanking doesn't work."

[niyad]

21. I feel sorry for any children in your care--

[Android3.14]

29. The feeling is mutual

eom
Well, except that I actually respect your rights.

[niyad]

73. wow, saying I feel sorry for children in your care is disrespecting your rights? but you

saying it back to me respects mine? wow. . .just,. . .wow.

[Android3.14]

76. Oh I'm sure that threw you back several yards

Shocked, I'm sure.

But yes, I do respect your rights.

You can spank or not spank your kids. Heck, you can make them sit on their hands, do chores, eat soap or even take away their T.V. when they misbehave. You can even let them run all over you while you sit there like so many parents I've seen with obnoxious little cusses that I wouldn't take to one of Vitter's dog fights.

It's your responsibility. You can take it or leave it.

But please, just stay away from me and mine.

[niyad]

77. not if I see you abusing them. and that goes any time I see a person abusing a child, or

an adult, for that matter.

[H2O Man]

40. Respectfully disagree.

I spent decades in human services, focusing on family violence. In the majority of the cases that I was involved with, the person who inflicted physical damage upon another family member claimed that it was their family's business, and no concern to anyone else. Indeed, as a rule, the most violent offenders insisted that their "right" to assault relatives was being infringed upon. In my opinion, that's a position that should be aborted.

[Android3.14]

49. Thank goodness it's your opinion

Why people conflate corporal punishment with actual abuse is beyond me. If a person is using "corporal punishment" the same way a animal abuser might us the word "training" to cover up mistreatment, then of course it is wrong.

However, spanking, in the accepted sense of redirecting a child's behavior with a little physical pain, is completely different than someone hitting a kid on the back with a tire iron and calling it "spanking".

[H2O Man]

59. I never encountered

a case of a parent hitting their child on the back with a tire iron. In all the cases I worked with, the offender insisted that he/she hit the child to teach him/her a valuable lesson. I rank that as about the same as when one spouse says, "Look what you made me do."

Striking another family member demonstrates a lack of insight, and an inability to deal with frustration. That are much better ways of dealing with situations.

[AnalystInParadise]

78. ^this

Spanking is not abuse.

[moriah]

58. Children already here are separate entities from their parents, they are not property.

Yes, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that "parenting styles" do not include abuse.

You sound far more like a Libertarian here than a liberal, if you disagree with the above statement.

[Android3.14]

111. I agree

What's your point?

[pnwmom]

80. Society has every right to stop child abuse. Children are not the possessions of their parents,

or of the state. But the state should protect them if the parents do not.

[Android3.14]

110. No argument there

I totally agree.

[morningfog]

83. You have no right to beat your kids.

Join us in modernity.

[Coventina]

106. My judgement is not ignorant, it is based on personal experience.

Nobody has the right to strike a child.

Why is being able to do so such an important issue for you?

[Android3.14]

109. Again, people continue making errors of fact

Parents do have a right to spank their kids. If you consider a swat on the butt as striking a child, then they have a right to strike a child. What they lack is the right to assault a child.

As far as why it is important to me, I think that a government should steer clear of intruding into a person's private life. Just like the government shouldn't deny women reproductive rights, deny people the ability to move about, deny people the right to choose or not choose a religion. It's the principle.

[Coventina]

115. Then we have a disagreement that cannot be bridged.

Under no circumstances is it OK to hit a child, even under the euphemism of "swat on the butt".

Why anyone would ever WANT that right, I cannot even understand.

"I hit a child and made them cry! Hooray me!"

Sickening.

[Android3.14]

116. Well, apparently as many as 90% of parents have found the circumstances

Perhaps, when you have kids, we can build a bridge.

[Coventina]

117. Do you have a link for this 90% statistic?

I'd like to see it.

[Android3.14]

118. Here

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2014/04/29/spanking-may-be-more-common-than-parents-admit

[Coventina]

119. 70-90% of American parents. OK. Interesting that the article you cite makes the point that it's

an ineffective form of punishment.

So why defend it?



I wonder what the stats are for other countries?
(I'm not asking you for them, just wondering out loud).

[Android3.14]

120. It's a natural way that mammals teach their offspring

You observe how any other mammal deals with it's offspring, and you will see that nipping and biting is how it is often done with all the species I can think of off-hand. Sure, parents can drive kids crazy by beating them or even cause serious injury. But that is true of any style of punishment. Used with restraint, like almost all mammals tend to do, pain is an effective tool when raising offspring.

It simply is incorrect to say that spanking is ineffective.

All the article says is that some children spanked tend to have similar problems. The truth is that a quick swat on the butt does quickly change behavior in children without causing physical damage. People use it because it works.

[Coventina]

122. Hilarious! You cite an article to support your position that does nothing but debunk your position.

And still try to say that spanking works?

Pain is an effective tool when raising offspring?

Yikes.

Show me one peer-reviewed study from a reputable medical or psychological journal that backs that up.

If spanking is so good and effective, why does the article you cited state that so many parents lie about it?

Hint: the answer is BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WRONG!!!

[Android3.14]

123. You are misinterpreting what the article says and what I drew from it

The article is saying that kids who parents have spanked have a higher likelihood of exhibiting certain behaviors.

The article implies parents lie about it because another group of people exhibit hostility regarding spanking.

I see that you are becoming upset again, so we'll leave that bridge unbuilt at this time. HJave a good day.

[Jamaal510]

20. When a child

is really young, my opinion is that spankings work the best. The brain of a baby (or a toddler) typically is not developed enough for the parent to be able to reason with them. Forms of punishment such as time outs and taking away toys/games/etc. are more efficient as the child becomes older. Different cultures and households also have their own styles of discipline that work, and it would be wrong in my opinion for one group of people to impose on other households what they think works best.

[niyad]

22. so you think it is okay to teach a child that it is okay for a larger,

stronger person to beat up on one smaller and weaker? because THAT is exactly what you are teaching that child.

[Orrex]

30. Why must that be the lesson?

so you think it is okay to teach a child that it is okay for a larger, stronger person to beat up on one smaller and weaker? because THAT is exactly what you are teaching that child.

I have heard this assertion many times over, but I've seldom if ever heard the claim supported.

Must that be the lesson taught by corporal punishment? Why? Does it necessarily exlude other lessons? On what basis do we conclude this with sufficient certainty that we can fault those who don't agree with the conclusion?



Suppose that Child A doesn't like liver and brussels sprouts, but Parent A serves liver and brussels sprouts. One might as readily assert that "it is okay to teach a child that it's okay for a larger, stronger person to" serve unpalatable food.

[niyad]

74. nice try. I do feel sorry for any children in your care.

[Orrex]

81. Why? Because I don't accept your assertions as fact?

Funny how you can--with apparent impunity--make a dubiously veiled accusation of child abuse, but if I (hypothetically, for example) were to suggest that your head should be stuffed back your ass, it's likely that my post would be hidden.


In the interest of civility, I will instead point out that I don't abuse my children, and I find your sanctimonious bullshit to be both simplistic and nauseating.

[newcriminal]

24. Let me get this right.

It's ok with you to spank a baby?

[uppityperson]

26. So it is ok to spank a baby? Is that what you are saying?

[cali]

31. how young is "really" young? and how is time out, for instance "reasoning" with them

it's a consequence for behavior that is unacceptable. there is broad consensus based on decades of studies that corporal punishment is ineffective, so your opinion which is clearly based on your feelings or gut, is not accurate.

[moriah]

61. So on a baby or toddler, what's your definition of a "spanking"?

A swat on the diaper? You can accomplish the same thing with tone of voice, because it's not like they actually feel the swat on the diaper. It's that their parents are angry with them.

If you're suggesting anything more than that, that's fucking abuse and sick.

Edit to add: Go see what spanking babies does -- read about "To Train Up A Child" and the aftermath of books like that.

[morningfog]

86. You obviously don't understand developing brains.

They understand far more than you gce credit.

[laundry_queen]

87. The brain of a baby or toddler

is even more susceptible to damage from hitting and abuse than is an older child. you hit a baby or toddler, you change their brain patterns forever.

Disgusting post.

[B2G]

34. We're gonna need a lot more jails. nt

[B2G]

41. I rarely spanked my kids

But there were a few exceptions.

My now 21 year old was a door slammer when she was angry. She knew I hated it and had been warned repeatedly. When she was about 8, she slammed her bedroom door on her then 11 year old sister's finger.

My response was to put her over my knee and swat her a couple of times. Hard. She was more shocked than anything and she never slammed a door again.

I don't regret it one iota either.

[Blaukraut]

48. We had a door slammer, too. Easy fix: We took her bedroom door off the hinges

To be fair, the kids didn't share a room, so only the slammer got punished.

[B2G]

50. But then I would have to listen to her music. lol.

[Blaukraut]

51. LOL, good point! n/t

[Union Scribe]

47. Anyone hitting a kid is a piece of shit

I don't care who they are or how they were raised. I've rarely been more disgusted than in watching people defend barbarous treatment of children.

[kelly1mm]

52. Corporal punishment is not illegal in Maryland. nt

[redstatebluegirl]

53. This is one of those things my family doesn't talk about but

I still have nightmares when I think about my Dad telling me to "go get a switch"... they were awful. I never had kids of my own, maybe due to Daddy, but I always swore to be an advocate for kids beaten as a child. A 4 year old??? I was that age when I gotthe first one. I bled for at least a day off and on. I pray for that baby.... Just because that was thehe was treated doesn't make it ok. It is NOT OK!

[Turbineguy]

60. When I was in third grade we had it.

Our teacher seemed to be the guy that handled it for the whole school. Children from higher grades were sent in for a whipping and then would cry before a bunch of third graders. There was pain and humiliation. And embarrassment for many who watched.

Finally somebody figured out that our teacher was a sadistic asshole who enjoyed hurting children. One day he was gone (Oh Happy Day, Oh Glorious Day!) and replaced by a total sweetheart Lady Teacher who was into teaching children to be decent people.

[RebelOne]

66. If corporal punishment for child abuse

had been in effect in the '40s and '50s, my mother would have been jailed. She broke several hair brushes over my head when I was about 9 or 10 because I would not hold still while she was braiding my hair every morning before I went to school. Then when I was about 15, she caught me smoking in my bedroom and picked up a broken curtain hanger and beat with with it. I still have a scar on my leg from the jagged edge of the hanger.

[steve2470]

70. My mouth was washed out with soap, at age 6....

for doing something which I honestly didn't do (say shit...I said SHIN which the teacher must have misheard). Even if I did say SHIT at age 6, soap washing in the mouth is hardly appropriate.

THAT...should be illegal everywhere, if it isn't already.

[AverageJoe90]

79. Oh, Coventina, honestly, I don't think you're whining at all. Hardly!

I'm sure many folks on here wish we had better & more concise legal protections for children in this country.

[XemaSab]

89. Says the guy who voted "none of the above."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5532637

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I wouldnt call that whining.

Not at all.

[kickysnana]

88. Cops can kill your kid for misbehaving. What would you do to keep that from happening?

[Sancho]

94. Even if we criminalize corporal punishment...

(and when I first taught school paddling was acceptable); it still doesn't help decide what is "criminal" on one day and not allowed on a different day. Heaven help (pun intended) all those generations of nuns with their rulers! At least we don't throw kids on a ship as an indentured cabin boy any more.

For some parents, teachers, and even experts almost anything is acceptable to some but unacceptable to others:

medication
isolation (time out)
rewards
restraints (kids are handcuffed now you know)
structure (uniforms?)
humiliation
special diets
etc., etc., etc.

Some children hurt others, some seem to be hurting no matter what teachers and parents do, and some kids hurt themselves. It's idealistic to say it shouldn't hurt to be a child when many of the issues are simply economic and have nothing to do with corporal punishment! There is never enough time or opportunity to educate everyone who happens to be a parent or teacher in the way we prefer, so we try to create rules of what is acceptable. There is no agreement about the rules!

[Coventina]

103. First of all: Wow! I had no idea this thread had over 100 replies!

I posted it and went to work and just now came back!
Never expected that.

To anyone who thinks spanking is OK:

My parents thought that they were "enlightened" spankers.
They would tell me to "go get the stick" and then explain why I was being beaten.

Out of all the times this happened, I understood the reason ONLY ONCE!
(I had deliberately done something I'd been told not to do).

Then they would hug me afterwards.

You know what it taught me? To fear and resent my parents.
Because I never understood what brought on their wrath.
That they somehow enjoyed humiliating and hurting me.
That love only came with pain.
(They rarely hugged me unless it was post-spanking).

So, if you think all of that is A-OK, then I have nothing but contempt for you.
And don't bother with "well, it was different in OUR family" because spanking will ALWAYS be a mechanism for child abuse, whether you think you are abusive or not.

[TransitJohn]

121. When was corporal punishment criminalized?