Boston intros bill to BAN SPANKING! This is awesome!

[radwriter0555]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4582708/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1;bp=t

BOSTON -- Should parents be allowed to spank their children? Massachusetts lawmakers will be debating that question following the filing of a bill that would ban corporal punishment in the commonwealth.

NewsCenter 5's Kelly Tuthill reported that state Rep. James Marzilli, Jr., of Arlington, Mass., is one of the sponsors of the bill, which prohibits everything from spanking to "hot saucing," which involves putting undiluted Tabasco sauce in a child's mouth.

In April, a Plymouth, Mass., father landed on the front page of local papers and behind bars after he used a belt to spank his son Josh, 12.

"He forgot his book. I went upstairs, I got my belt. I came downstairs. I gave him three swats on the rear end, with his pants on, like any concerned parent would do, and scared him, of course, you know. Hopefully I got the point across," Charles Enloe said.

The bill comes two weeks after Brookline, Mass., Town Meeting passed a non-binding resolution encouraging parents not to spank. The Supreme Judicial Court addressed the issue after a Woburn, Mass., minister used a belt to spank his 9-year-old son. In 1999, he was cleared when the SJC ruled that parents have a right to spank their children if it does not cause substantial risk of injury.

The bill appears to be unprecedented. Supporters said it's all about preventing abuse, not prosecuting parents.

Definitely a move in the right direction!

[Clark2008]

1. Look, I'm all for laws preventing child abuse and punishing those

who committ it, but spanking?

Oh, come on! A tad intrusive, methinks.

I was spanked and I'm fine. Of course, my parents never went overboard.

[wuushew]

2. Spanking inflicts intentional physical pain on a child

timeouts or rewards for good behavior are always far better alternatives.

[seabeyond]

6. it is your choice, not the other parents

i bet there is parenting you do i dont like. i wont interfer with you, damn well better not interfer with me.

are we going to just continue to take children from homes willy nilly and then pat ourselves on the back what a fine job we did breaking up families.

texas feels it is wrong for gays to raise children, so they are going to pull all foster children from their homes

you dont like spanking, dont spank

someone doesnt like abortion, dont abort

[K-W]

20. Nobody gets to choose to assualt other people.

You compare an adult hurting a child to a gay couple adopting and a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy? Where exacly is the similarity?

A women chooses for herself what goes on in her body.
A man or woman can choose which gender a partner to raise a family with.
Nobody gets to choose to hit other people.

[Pithlet]

21. It isn't just a personal decision affecting only yourself

When a parent beats the tar out of their kid with a belt, that kid, a separate HUMAN BEING, feels excruciating pain. No one human should have the absolute right to do that to another. And that extends to children.

You don't own your kids. They have their own rights separate from yours. They have the right to not be beaten, just as you do.

[seabeyond]

35. oh my god, lets not dramatize it any

beats the tar and excutiating pain. have you been hit on the butt with a belt and a pair of pants on, now you just sound ridiculous

[Pithlet]

44. Anyone who thinks children have no rights of their own

is ridiculous. I realize that like anything, there are varying degrees. I would not qualify a swat on a covered bottom as abuse. But, beating with a belt is, as someone who as personally experienced this, excruciatingly painful. My father had NO right to do that to me. I love him, and we have a great relationship. He was a great father in all other respects. But he was wrong to do that. I have NO problems with making such actions against the law.

You seem to think of children as only extensions of their parents. That is NOT the case. Our children are in our care. We don't get to decide to beat them any more than we get to decide to beat anyone else. Why do human rights fly out the window just because you're a kid and you have parents?

[seabeyond]

51. You seem to think of children as only extensions of their parents

no i do not and i do not raise my kids that way. and will challenge you all over the place if you dare to judge my parenting thru a damn computer. you dont know shit about me as a parent, as you dont know shit about that parent, his relationship with his son or any other parent that choses spanking as discipline.

quit being so damn quick to judge people

[Pithlet]

53. I'm not judging your parenting

I made NO statements whatsoever about you personally. So calm down.

Yes. I judge people who beat other human beings. Just because that other human being is their child doesn't make me turn away.

[seabeyond]

60. you seem to think children are.........

an extension of yourself. since i spend every minute of my parenting teaching my children the exact opposite, ya, ......i think this is really offensive, judging me without knowing shit about me

[K-W]

63. You think light violence is an appropriate form of child care. EOM

[seabeyond]

67. i dont htink it is, and i dont do it to my children

because even though i was spanked and with a belt too, i am a pacifist, a wuss, i could never hit anyone for any reason (didnt turn out violent did i), even if i really felt the last alternative as a good responsible parent was to spank my child, i still couldnt do it.

i do not see it as harm to children. any children i know, that i have seen spanked, not to mention my experience and all my firends expereince, further my husbands experience and his four siblings, as a "bad" punishment

no, i dont think it is abusive. yes i think it is merely another form of punishment. and no i dont do it to my kids

that is the wonderful thing, i can not do it, if i dont agree with it

[K-W]

70. So causing someone physical pain isnt harming them now?

So if I walk up to you on the street, and smack you in the face a few times, I am not harming you?

[Pithlet]

65. It was a comment about your statements here

nothing more. You make comments. I offer counterpoint. It is how message boards work.

I have no idea what kind of a parent you are. I don't know you. I made no statement about you as a parent.

[redqueen]

252. "take children from homes willy nilly"?

Who said anything about that?

:shrug:

[Deep13]

248. right, that's how it works

I'm all for stopping child abuse, having been on the receiving end of it. Nevertheless, parents must be able to assert control over their children. If there are no really negative consequences for bad behavior, then the child is in control, not the parent. Parents must be in charge to protect the child's safety, to promote postive behavior as a life lesson and for the comfort of others. Corporal punishment should be rare, but outlawing it entirely is too much.

What the hell is a time out? How do you get your kid to comply with it if you cannot force him?

Can't say I agree with rewards for good behavior unless it is truly exceptional. Society does not reward people for doing what they are required to do anyway. Besides, how narcissistic do you want you kid to be? All my relatives raise their children with this philosophy and they are all out-of-control bratlings. Strict does not mean abusive. It simply means having standards.

[mongo]

262. Well said.

I was never much of a spanker, but it is a good last line of disipline, and the threat a strong motivator.

[Maru Kitteh]

278. Exactly! My well adjusted honor student daughter was spanked fewer times

than I have fingers on one hand, but the plain truth is that in each instance it was appropriate and effective.

We are raising a bunch of self absorbed little bratty monsters in this country and an utter lack of discipline is just one of the reasons why. There is a mile of difference between a beating and a spanking. I don't agree with belts but a ban on spanking altogether is ludicrous.

[nashville_brook]

300. is it possible to be strict w/o spanking?

i'm working on a column that deals with these issues tangentally and i would really use helpn defining terms. my intuition is that harmful spanking involves robbing the child of self respect. but your post suggests that spanking should be done for control.

are there limits that you put on the definition of "control?" like, running out into the street and getting a spanking makes sense, b/c the kid is in danger. what if the kids is just annoying? james dobson says that spanking is important in order get kids to submit to authority... all authority thruout life. is this part of it for you?

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and would swat me raising welts. she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded."

does going "overboard" apply to the parents' emotional state -- or the effect on the child? could it have anything to do with additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for simply being a kid?

i was usually "swatted" by my grandmother for defiance as i recall (i'm sure i deserved it, but the switching didn't curb the defiant behavior -- i'm still a smartass). my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use help getting outside my own experience.

[slackmaster]

275. Spanking inflicts humilitation, beating inflicts pain

There is a difference.

[lonestarnot]

320. Oh bullshit...If my kid needs his ass beat I'm gona beat his ass!

[K-W]

18. The fact that you survive something doesnt make it OK.

Children arent property. Assualt is assault. There is a reason we dont let people hit each other, god only knows why we let people hit children.

[seabeyond]

39. survive........wooosh, and just by the skin of the teeth huh

near death bed i bit. can you make it anymore dramatic to win your agenda

[K-W]

55. You are the one that made that argument, not I.

You said you got spanked and you are fine. Clearly arguing that the fact that you are unharmed by it justifies it.

I also have no agenda, unless you consider ethics an agenda. And nobody is dramaticising anything. Spanking is low key abuse.

If I restrained someone and spanked them against thier will, I would go to jail. Now why dont you stop trying to spin my arguments and explain why exactly children deserve less protection from thier parents than each of us has from each other.

[seabeyond]

61. low key abuse, yet you chose a word survive

at least i can be honest

[K-W]

66. You are assuming I meant survive as in miraculously survived, I didn't

If you are so honest why do you keep misconstruing my posts rather than actually supporting your position?

When I said survived I meant that you went through it unharmed, which was exactly what you said, and that is the definition of the word survived.

[bloom]

68. Just hitting someone is at least a misdemeanor

- unless it is your child. (That is if there isn't any visible damage.)


It can be difficult to prosecute parents who beat up their kids - because of the pervasive attitude that parents have the "right".


If there was a law against spanking - it would take away the gray area - what hitting is Ok and what isn't.

[Yupster]

322. So - what should the punishment be?

A kid gets spanked by his mom in his bedroom and the spanking police were luckily looking in his window and catch her.

So, what's the mom's penalty?

Does the mom get a fine?

Community service?

A day in the pokey?

What if she's in defiance of the law and does it twice or thrice?

Should her kids be removed from the home?

[seabeyond]

323. i cant get anti abortion people to answer that question either

just bad and should be stopped. i ask, does she go to jail. has five other kids, take them away put them in foster and put her in jail. the man that impregnated her, does he go to jail too. she couldnt do it alone, she had to have help from a man to get that way, so all going to jail

no one will tell me.

[rucky]

75. prayer doesn't hurt either...

but that doesn't mean it is appropriate in schools. Especially when you're trying to teach a second grader that hitting is not ok. Talk about a mixed message.

[seabeyond]

78. no prayer either, we on the left has decided it cause emotional

pain, and wars which in turn is really murder, and the parent has no say it in it, becuase we the society decide

[nashville_brook]

297. could you describe "overboard" -- i'm working on a column and i

need help on defining terms. my intuition is that harmful spanking involves robbing the child of self respect.

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and swat the shit out of me raising welts everytime. she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded."

does "overboard" apply to the parents' emotional state -- or the effect on the child? could it have anything to do with additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for simply being a kid?

i was usually hit by my grandmother for defiance as i recall. my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. This is insane.

Unless the child is being abused (spanking and abuse are NOT one in the same), then the government needs to stay the fuck out of it!

[K-W]

57. Spanking is abuse.

Or wouldnt you mind having somone forcibally restrain you and spank you against your will? I have a funny feeling you might call it abuse if it happened to you.

[Behind the Aegis]

163. There is a difference.

Spanking a child on the bottom, one or two swats, is not abuse. It is a corrective technique for an individual who cannot rationalize. Considering I'm 36, I think if I did something wrong, I can be reasoned with, as opposed to corporal punishment. I feel after a certain age, spanking is no longer useful, but during the years where reason is not part of the developmental stage, a pop on the bottom gets the point across.

[radwriter0555]

236. HITTING a child is an irrational response to behavior. Children don't

behave better because they're beaten and spanked.

Children behave properly when they're raised by an adult who recognises that brutality is not the manner in which to correct a child's behavior.

Cihldren behave properly when they're spoken to, given reasonable direction and reasonable expectations in behavior.

Spanking is violence. Spanking is abuse. Spanking is for the PARENT, not the child.

[Deep13]

256. not necessarily

Small children are irrational by nature. They want all they can get and will use any behavior available to get it. It is a survival instinct resulting from millions of years of evolution. You will not get around that by being reasonable. Spanking out of anger is irrational, reactionary and abusing. Doing it in a controlled manner because nothing else works and control must be asserted is rational and calculated. Besides, parental control should not be the subject of negotiations.

Spanking is violence to a limited degree, but concluding that it is automatically abusive is a conclusion based on ideology, not evidence. Spanking can certainly be abusive, but not always. Humans are violent by nature and violence pervades our society. That will always be a fact.

[Behind the Aegis]

259. Thank you

You said it much better than I was about to! :)

[radwriter0555]

288. To justify violence against a child because 'we've always done it' is like

saying we should enslave people because we've always done it.

I have to hope that those of us who advocate non-violent child rearing are more evolved than the ones who propone violent acts against children.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

329. Hyperbole Much?

Comparing some light swats on the butt to slavery is absurd. I suggest you re-read the post you're responding to.

By the way...are you a devoted pacifist?

DTH

[nashville_brook]

310. deep13: OMG! i need your help defining terms!

but i want to ask posters to this thread about spanking b/c i'm working on a column dealing with parental disiciple and authority and i need help getting outside of my own experience with this issue. you mention "rationality/irrationality" and that totally barks up the tree i'm at, so it would be hugely helpful if you could provide insight.

i have no kids (2 italian greyhounds...never thought i'd be pushing 40 and childless). i'm writing on the connection between children developing from instinctual creatures into members of society and dealing with authority.

could you help me by expanding some on your thoughts about the limits of rational discipline?

in your experience, is spanking the only way to deal with misbehaving (irrational) children? does anything else work? what is the best outcome of spanking an irrational child? what should we aim for when we are forced to use spanking on a child? do we limit it to getting them to stop the specific offending behavior? is there anything larger?

is abuse ONLY defined by evidence such as bruising? or can it include the emotional state of the parent?

my intuition is that abuse involves robbing the child of self respect. so, it's a "functional" definition. you seem to agree, but your post was so up my alley, i figured you'd be great to put these questions to.

i'm totally not trying to inflame... this thread is super-fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from liberal DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. thanks and sorry for the "intrusion" on this thread :)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

327. AWESOME. POST.

I wish everyone would read it.

DTH

[Maru Kitteh]

284. Your statement is very correct in some instances and irretrievably WRONG in

many others. Spanking out of anger is an irrational act which may or may not benefit the child.

Children who are rarely spanked in a controlled manner without implements by a rational parent as a last resort DO behave better as a result of this structured and appropriate discipline.

Spankings and beatings are not the same thing. You can lump them together along with all of the emotion and drama you like but it will not make it so. Spankings and beatings are not the same thing. There is NO evidence whatsoever that infrequent and controlled physical discipline is of any detriment whatsoever.

It is the responsibility of a parent to control their child's behavior and to teach that child self control. Times are often that you cannot reason with a child because they are not yet in that stage of development. You do children a tremendous disservice by treating them as if they were miniature adults. They are not. They are different and less abled physically, emotionally and cognitively. On the rare occasions when other methods have failed to reach the child a parent must have at their disposal spanking as a method of discipline particularly where the child's behavior puts himself or others at risk.

Comparing the corrective action of a parent to a stranger assault on the street, as some have done, is patently stupid as well. I am not allowed to walk up to you on the street and physically restrain you, that would be assault. Does that mean a parent should be charged with assault when they restrain their child from running onto the street? Of course not. That would be STUPID. Just as it is stupid to suggest that spanking, done properly and to protect a child from endangering himself or others is abuse.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

315. How many

Middle or Jr High Schools have you observed lately? Kids DO NOT respond to being reasoned with and given reasonanble direction. I will clarify that and say this does not apply to ALL kids, but it does apply to a very large number of kids.

Kids these days are on the brink of out of control. Many are completely out of control. They are very aware of the leigons out there that they can cry "i'm abused" and make mom and dad cringe at the thought of being arrested, having their kids taken away etc. Do you not see the effects this has had on the kids of today? Do you not see that there are more and more and more child criminals? Do you think this is some freak accident? It's because of the soap box that so many are jumping up on and taking more and more control away from the parents and putting it in the childs hands.

Keep advocating laws that put the kids in control. But don't be surprised when one of those kids doesn't respond to your "reasoning and good direction" and jacks your car or maybe puts a bullet in your head.

[nashville_brook]

298. is severity of the hitting the only criteria?

need help on defining terms. my intuition is that harmful spanking involves robbing the child of self respect.

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and swat the shit out of me raising welts everytime. she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded."

does "overboard" apply to the parents' emotional state -- or the effect on the child? could it have anything to do with additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for simply being a kid?

i was usually hit by my grandmother for defiance as i recall. my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use help getting outside my own experience.

[nashville_brook]

301. please help me with a column i'm writing...

i'm asking some posters to this thread about where they draw the line between discipline and abuse. the column is tangental, but this is an important part so long as the illustratration i'm working on doesn't get cut.

my intuition is that harmful spanking or abuse involves robbing the child of self respect. so, it's a "functional" definition. you seem to say that abuse is a matter of severity, or a "quantitative" definition.

what are there limits that you put on the definition of "abuse?" like, running out into the street and getting a spanking makes sense, b/c the kid is in danger. what if the kids is just annoying? is it abuse to spank if it's for the narcissism and/or comfort of the parent?

does abuse involve the age of the child? such as if the kid is too young to understand? could abuse be defined by emotional damage to the child? or just physical?

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and would swat me raising welts. her intention was to only to hit my arms and legs, but she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded" adding a component of terror to reduce recitivism.

is it abuse if the parent gets out of control? regardless of how the kid takes it. example: is it abuse if the parent gets out of control and just starts swatting, regardless of if it really hurts the child?

could abuse be mitigated by additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for simply being a kid?

i was usually "swatted" by my grandmother for defiance as i recall (i'm sure i deserved it, but the switching didn't curb the defiant behavior -- i'm still a smartass). my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from liberal DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use help getting outside my own experience.

[jojo54]

4. Smacking a child on the rearend is not a problem to me

unless it goes too far, of course. But I also don't believe in using a belt, paddle, stick or whatever else is at hand.....the hand is all you should use. I don't know, it's just something about the direct contact; I always felt that using something else involved cruelty. I'm a mom, what can I say?

[seabeyond]

8. my parents used a belt on me two three times in my childhood

big friggin deal

pull us out of our home. we had a wonderful home, wonderful parents. the audacity for another to decide. the arrogance

[nashville_brook]

299. can you think of any other criteria that would be problematic?

i'm working on a column, and i need help on defining terms. my intuition is that harmful spanking involves robbing the child of self respect which is an outcome-based definition and therefore hard to apply.

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and swat the shit out of me raising welts everytime. she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded."

does "overboard" apply to the parents' emotional state -- or the effect on the child? could it have anything to do with additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for simply being a kid?

i was usually hit by my grandmother for defiance as i recall. my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use help getting outside my own experience.

[seabeyond]

5. bad bad bad....you guys dont get it

the state of texas took a child away from parents because they decided enough on chemo treatment. the doctors deciding she needed to continue enduring the chemo treatment. this girl is dying and they took her away from parents and placed her in foster care. i DONT care if you think this girl needs to continue cause there is the slightest chance she may be healed of cancer, her parents and her weighed it and decided they gave it a good fight, now let her finish her time the way she wants

the state has her. that is pure wrong. wrong

you are not to decide if spanking is ok or not. that isnt your job. it is not you who are the childs parent. back the f* off. this just disgusts me.

we have made it so if my brother knew i smoked pot, then he would have to turn me in

we have businesses running credit check, not hiring people that smoke cigs in their home

we are making parents give kids vaccinations for a childhood disease of chicken pox, odds so out there that a child will die from.

stop it with this shit. it is not a good thing

democrats are contributing to the f* up of this country. i dont want a list of laws from a bunch of politicians that arent raising their own kids to tell me what i have to do with mine. and i dont want my neighbor to be telling me either.

and i wont tell you how to raise yours.

and no i dont spank my kids. i dont like it, i dont do it. but....i have a responsibility and obligation to stand up for the parents right to discipline their child with a spanking if they see fit

[Mad_Dem_X]

355. Excellent post!

There is a big difference between a tap on the bottom and beating the crap out of your kid. The gov't is intrusive enough as it is; we don't them to regulate this.

[Igel]

7. Mass. seems to be saying that my right to privacy ends

with my kids.

Fortunately, I'm not in Massachusetts.

[Imajika]

9. This is government intrusion at its worst...

...I can't even believe Massachusetts lawmakers would consider such a stupid thing.

A government that starts telling parents whether they can or can't spank their kids is a government that is simply out of control.

I sure hope Democrats don't become identified with this sort of nonsense. This will be about as popular as a bad case of diarrhea.

"This is awesome!"

No, this is not awsome. This is a family decision. You can chose to not spank your kids, and other parents should have the right to raise their children the way they think best.

Spanking is not the same as abuse. If you don't like it - don't do it, but stay out of other families business. My brothers and I got whipped when we were out of control, and we all turned out just fine. Every kid I knew when I was a child got spanked once in awhile for misbehaving, and each one that I kept in touch with also seems to have done quite well in life. The government has absolutely no business nosing into such things.

Imajika

[Berserker]

14. Children should NEVER be spanked

What the hell do parents think spanking a child teaches them? Violence works? Is that the message. If you have to beat your children to make them behave then it's the parents that have the fucking problem not the child. I was never been beaten as a child and I raised my child the same way. I detest any parent who stoops to this bullshit and then trys to make it sound like it's OK. And I am a Parent that believes in NO spanking fuck what any parent Democrat or repuuke that beats their child thinks.

[seabeyond]

22. so because you believe this, then we all have to do as you believe

does this sound familiar. i was spanked, i am as much as a pacifist as anyone can be. so i guess your theory that it creates violence is a sweeping broad assessment. not to mention every friend i had was spanked and they are not violent either. so you make thing up for your argument too

i dont spank. i dont like it. and i will stand up for someones right to use spanking as punishment

you can hate, you can hate all parents that do it. that only effects you, only YOU, no one else. that is fine. hate them all, judge them whatever, but because you believe,.....i dont have to live your belief

[Imajika]

25. And that's your opinion...

..which I am fine with.

Just stay out of my business. I do believe in spanking now and again. I was spanked as a kid when my parents found other methods of punishment insufficient. So were my brothers and all of my childhood friends, and we all turned out pretty damn well. I sure as hell knew that if I screwed up big time that I would get spanked, and that did act as a deterent for me. Sorry Beserker, but timeout corners just don't cut it in my book.

You can think whatever you want, but don't impose your system for raising children on me and my family. Basically, stay out of my life.

This no-spanking legislation idea is no different than the fundies (whom I detest) desire to impose their religious views on our kids.

Imajika

[GodHelpUsAll2]

317. Well if you believe

so strongly that the government has the right to tell us how to parent, then you must also agree that the government has the right to tell you have to keep your husband, child mother whatever on life support indefinitely because they think it is abusive no matter what you or your husband, child mother etc. might have desired

Maybe you also think the government has the right to tell you that abortion is an abomination so it should be made illegal because after all it is not right.

It amazes the living shit out of me how people will kick and scream when something they personally are OK with is being jeopardized by the government but when it's something they PERSONALLY think is wrong they up on that high horse spewing crap about how "it's wrong and the government should intervene".

Hello pot, ever meet kettle?

[Yupster]

328. The old expression is

"It depends on whose ox is being gored."

[lonestarnot]

321. My ass! How many kids have you raised to majority?

[FreedomAngel82]

130. My question is with this

What happens if this law passes and a person spanks their kid out in public because the child is out of control and someone sees it and reports it. Could that child be taken away from it's family because of one incident? This is nuts and is an invasion of privacy. Now if you know if a person is being abused you can investigate it yourself and talk to the person and help them that way. There are other ways to deal with abuse. Making this bill isn't one of them. And what will happen if other states adopt this and fundie bases do? What would the punishments be for crossing the line? Parents have to be able to disciplen their kids up until the age eighteen. I have a cousin who is wild, so what if his mother and family lived in Mass and she lightly spanked his butt to get him to calm down. Would she go to jail? She has a infant daughter and another son and husband to take care of.

[LeighAnn]

314. Happpens Every Day

>>>What happens if this law passes and a person spanks their kid out in public because the child is out of control and someone sees it and reports it. Could that child be taken away from it's family because of one incident? <<<

That happens every day. Look at this CPS chart

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm03/table6_4.htm

Look at the 41,642 NON-VICTIMS removed from their homes. What the hell does that mean???

[Yupster]

324. Good point about Dems becoming associated

with this.

I could see this as another wedge issue for the next decade of elections.

It sure won't fly with most parents whether they spank or not.

[radwriter0555]

10. If spanking or hitting a child is okay with you, how about the next time I

disagree with you, you let me come over and spank or slap you?

Or let your neighbor spank or slap you....

Or how's about your neighbor lets you spank or slap him or her?

There is no reason that parents should be legally permitted to commit a violent act towards a child that's their own or anyone else's.

Violence is violence no matter who is doing it, and it is ALWAYS wrong unless it's in self defense.

[seabeyond]

13. if time outs and taking away things is ok with you

how about next time you misbehave i give you a time out and take away your computer. hierarchy is not the same for child and parent. this is a ridiculous arguement. dont agree with spanking, dont spank YOUR kids

[Pithlet]

16. Your kids are not your property to do with as you wish

If society has deemed that an action is abusive and wrong, they have every right to tell you you can't do that. Privacy does not mean you have the right to do whatever you want with other human beings, and children are human beings. Your children are in your care, but they do not belong to you.

[seabeyond]

24. then, i dont want to hear a damn bet of bitching, when we discriminate

against gays. or when the right of abortion is taking from us.

[K-W]

29. That is a bogus comparison.

You are comparing light child abuse to situations where nobodies rights are being violated.

[seabeyond]

42. you have labeled it child abuse because of you belief

they have labeled it sin because of their belief. that is the comparison

[Pithlet]

49. So,

If I "believe" it is okay to beat my neigbhor with a belt when they won't stop their late night parties, then it's okay? Because it is my belief, after all, that it is okay to do. Don't impose your belief on me that it isn't!

Human rights isn't about beliefs. It is about the basic human right to make it through the day without being beaten. Something EVERY SINGLE HUMAN should have, regardless of their age. And we, as a society, have an obligation to assure that everyone's rigts are met.

[K-W]

59. The fact that hitting someone is abuse is not a belief, it is a definition

Hitting a child to cause him pain is abuse, now you may think that minor abuse is justified, but denying it is abuse is just silly. Thats like arguing light torture isnt torture.

You are just arguing dualism. Instead of looking at the facts you let your preconcieved moral judgement determine the truth. Because you think spanking is ok, it must not be abuse because abuse is bad.

It is in fact abuse, and whether it is good or bad is a judgement about the nature of abuse. If it wasnt abuse there would be no point in doing it. It causes pain, thats the whole idea.

[seabeyond]

72. yelling at your child, giving a child time out,

making a child sad...............is a abuse, not a physical abuse, but just as painful in emotional. all children experience. from the simple of being correct along life and the embarrassment and pain in that. a disappointed parent, equal and for some a greater pain than a physical smack on the butt

[K-W]

76. So because its possible to hurt your children without hitting them,

it should be legal to hit them?

That argument really doesnt convince me.

[seabeyond]

79. you base it is physical pain hitting child, ergo outlaw it

emotional pain is more damaging than physical pain. that is why you will hear KIDS say they prefer the spanking

[K-W]

83. So we should allow spanking, because if we dont parents will turn

to emotionally abusing them, which is in your opinion worse...

How about we dont allow any people to hit other people without proveable justification, since that is the rule we use with every other human relationship in our society, and we educate parents on ways to teach your child to behave without intentionally scarring thier psyche.

[seabeyond]

87. now we pass a law before child, we have child classes

and before we get married, we have marriage classes. how else would you like to dictate my life.

i read all the baby books while preg, then i got the books age appropriate as babies grew. i have some wonderful ones. one child never fit into any of them, but they were still good reads. because i spent the massive hours studying being a parent all parents should be required to do the same as i

no, i wont demand that of my fellow man.

and people who dont spank have to use some tool. be it a timeout with my social oriented youngest the worst was putting him in a room by himself. i recognized, so i went in and laid with him in his time out, talked to him softly. worked him out of the anger. what about the parent that doesnt go into that time out with the social child. they get their ass in trouble. you betcha,. it would have been more pain for my son to be alone than to get a spanking. they mean nothing to him,

because as adult we are offended by the thought of hitting, it is not the same in the mind of a child on the butt. it just isnt. it is not what you and others are making it out to be. you are just wrong. and when we would have these spanking threads i just stayed out of them, i didnt care if you wanted to think this. fine. but now a damn law. do research on it. talk to kids, talk to psychiatrists. be open minded about it. cause you are not open minded, yet you are willing to pass a law that will do more damage to the democrat party then the kerry haters think kerry will do, or the dean haters think dean will do

i am done

i have done the research, being opposed to, i have had to reconcile with it

[K-W]

94. I never suggested such a law, you continue to distort my posts.

Anyway your claim that parents in liu of spanking would institute a system of emotional terrorism doesnt sound terribly plausible to me. Any parent that desperate to hurt thier children was probably crossing the existing line of physical violence as well.

Stop equating spanking with a timeout. The two are completely different and if you had done one ounce of research into the psychology of learning you would know that.

[funflower]

145. Both emotional damage and physical damage are ineffective and

wrong methods of helping a child learn to manage her behavior in the long run. I agree that emotional damage is probably worse.

[FreedomAngel82]

138. And what is going to be next?

No time out's? No red ink on papers with bad grades? Staying locked in your room for a certain period of time? Do you call that abuse? Are you going to make laws for that too?

[Pithlet]

150. False slippery slope

To say that one human being doesn't have the right to hit another, and that extends to all human beings, and basing law on that, does not logically follow to all forms of punishment should be illegal. Just as well say "If they ban spanking, then next they'll ban driving!"

[FreedomAngel82]

156. So can I still have an abortion?

Or is that taking away rights of the child?

[seabeyond]

159. wow

that is a pretty damn good argument. had me pause

[Pithlet]

167. It's a good argument if

one can compare making decisions about what procedures they'll have on their own body to beating another person's body. Persnally, I don't see how that is possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Right, but it's a gray area to say that all spanking is "beating"

just like it's a gray area to say that the fetus in a woman's body doesn't constitute a person it its own right. I'm not saying I believe it is, certainly not from the second of conception, but I believe different people can come to different conclusions about that... and the point of being pro-choice is to leave that conclusion up to a woman and her doctor.

Likewise, yes, beating your kid is abuse. But I'm not sure all spanking as discussed here constitutes "beating". And, I will reiterate, I personally think spanking is shitty parenting and sends a bad message to kids about authority coming from the place of who is biggest and has the power to hit. But, that said, I don't think that making that call, legislatively, for every other parent in this country is my place.

[Pithlet]

188. I'm not exactly for an outright ban on all spanking.

My biggest problem with the arguments against this ban offered in this thread is that they seem to be focusing on privacy. That this isn't an intrusion. That the government should mind its own business. And, for reasons I've stated repeatedly in this thread, it isn't. If the state feels that a certain action crosses the line, then they do have the right to step in and protect the child, because children have their own rights separate from their parents. And it's hard to draw a specific line as to what constitutes spanking and what constitutes abuse.

[Pithlet]

164. Uh. Yes.

A right to make choices about own body, and a right to beat another person's body are two entirely different things. Having an abortion isn't taking away anyone else's rights.

[Jersey Ginny]

318. I think the point is that this is a government overreach

Education is key, not legislation. Government sponsored parenting classes and education about alternatives to corporal punishment are a better approach.

[FreedomAngel82]

136. Not really

It matches up pretty well. Nobodies rights are being violated? What about the right to punish a kid? Yes, some parents do get out of control. That's why there is a little program invented called ANGER MANAGEMENT.

[Pithlet]

31. A gay person isn't infringing on another human's rights.

A woman deciding what to do with her own body is not infringing on another human being's rights. A parent whaling on their defenseless child with a leather strap IS infringing on another human being's rights. Absolutely no basis for comparison.

And I can sense it coming. Forgive me if this wasn't your intention, but don't go into that "This is why we'll lose votes" weak, lame argument.

[FreedomAngel82]

140. Not according to the fundies

Fundies believe that if you have an abortion you're giving up the right of that fetus. So the abortion status is perfect.

[Pithlet]

214. Actually, no.

Because, last time I checked, fundies didn't have the absolute moral truth. Just because they say something doesn't make it so. Besides, we're not talking about fetuses. We're talking about fully formed, separate human beings. There are arguable differences between a fetus and a 5 year old speaking from a human rights standpoint, but there CERTAINLY aren't between a 5 year old and a 30 year old. Few but the most fanatic would argue that a woman should have to die if carrying a fetus full term, but almost no one would argue that a 5 year old would have to die to save a 30 year old's life.

At any rate. We're talking about not being allowed to beat other already born human beings, whether they're children or not. So, no. The abortion anaology does not hold.

[K-W]

27. So by your logic we should allow infanticide?

Since you dont get to make decisions for other parents?

Your argument is bogus, parents dont get to treat thier children however they want. Children arent property, they have rights.

[FreedomAngel82]

142. Children aren't eighteen

You're obliged to your parents until you are at least eighteen. Then you can do whatever the hell you want. Until I was eighteen even though I lived in my father's house I still went by his rules. Are you going to tell me that my father and/or my mother aren't allowed to punish me? Are you going to make a law that says that my parents, or any other parent, can't send their kids to their room without supper next? I've had that happen to me. Is that abuse too? Starving me for a night?

[Yupster]

331. I sat at the kitchen table till bedtime

one night because I wouldn't eat my string beans. What a little jerk. Luckily my kid hasn't tried that one on me.

I spanked him 2-3 times when he was 4-5.

[seabeyond]

332. mine was a soggy bowl of cereal

did that once. eeeewwwww

[funflower]

141. No one is saying a parent does not have authority over their child.

However, that authority can be exercised in a way that is logical. Taking away computer time, for example, is also an illogical punishment unless the child's offense is related to misuse of the computer. What works is enforcing a logical or (even better) natural consequence. If Joey hits, it is logical that Joey will have to spend some time isolated from other children, as he has shown himself to be a threat to them. This is not a punishment. It is a logical consequence, and it is far more effective than corporal or other punishment.

[FreedomAngel82]

144. And who are you to decide what's punishment?

You're not my parent. My parents aren't your parents. So who the hell are you to decide? You don't know me and my actions. You're not around me all the time like my mother and/or father are.

[funflower]

166. Punishment is when an authority figure inflicts an unpleasant experience

on another person either in an attempt to deter a behavior or as retribution for it.

A logical consequence is a reasonable response to a behavior.

If you drive drunk and the government revokes your driver's license, that a logical consequence. After all, you've demonstrated that you are a danger behind the wheel. If you drive drunk and the government spanks you or puts you in the stocks that's punishment. Its unrelated to your offense, and its only value is in the physical or emotional pain you experience.

Feel free to accept or reject my definitions. After all, I'm not your parent.

However, I am a parent of sensitive, considerate, moral children who have never been spanked.

[Maru Kitteh]

290. Your drunk driving/government analogy is perfect

Because so many drunk drivers continue to drive after they have no license at all.

Some children will continue a destructive behavior despite many other carefully executed parenting techniques having been applied.

Some people seem to feel that anything which causes a child momentary discomfort is abuse. I hope none of them are raising children, but it does explain why it is so difficult to attend a movie or have decent dinner out these days without someone else's brat ruining the atmosphere.

I am the parent of sensitive, considerate, moral and successful children who are also polite and well behaved, who were spanked very rarely.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. But there is a difference between making points about effective discipline

and making laws against swatting a kid's butt, which (for better or worse) is a widely accepted form of discipline. I don't believe in it, but I'm not one of those people who wants LAWS to tell everyone they have to do things my way. Lots of things constitute child abuse in my mind, not the least of which would be selling kids fairy tales about the Earth being created in seven days as scientific fact, and convincing them that dinosaur bones and evolution are a "hoax". I think telling kids they're going to burn in hell because they are gay or because they have sex before they're married constitutes a form of abuse.

But as tempting as I might find it some days, I'm really not in favor of throwing all of our Kansas School Board, "left behind" loony parents in jail.

I think there's a distinction between the way most people spank or were spanked as kids and being beaten with belts, etc. etc.

I think spanking is shitty parenting, but I don't believe that you can make absolutist statements about it always constituting criminal abuse.

[funflower]

179. I agree. I am against spanking, but I don't think this law is going to be

the answer. I think we "nonspankers" need to educate the public about the fact that one can be a very morally conservative parent and raise very moral children without spanking. This is one where we need to win hearts and minds, not just pass laws.

[nashville_brook]

303. seabeyond: help me understand spanking

i'm asking some posters to this thread about where they draw the line between discipline and abuse. i'm working on a column that is tangental, but this is an important part so long as the illustratration i'm working on doesn't get cut.

my intuition is that harmful spanking or abuse involves robbing the child of self respect. so, it's a "functional" definition. you seem to say that spanking is spanking and abuse is abuse. am i getting this right? iv'e tried to read all your posts on this thread to understand.

what are there limits that you put on the definition of "abuse?" like, running out into the street and getting a spanking makes sense, b/c the kid is in danger. what if the kid is annoying the living hell out of you :) is it abuse to spank if it's for the narcissism and/or comfort of the parent?

does abuse involve the age of the child? such as if the kid is too young to understand? could abuse be defined by emotional damage to the child? or just physical?

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and would swat me raising welts. her intention was to only to hit my arms and legs, but she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded" adding a component of terror to reduce recitivism.

is it abuse if the parent gets out of control? regardless of how the kid takes it. example: is it abuse if the parent gets out of control and just starts swatting, regardless of if it really hurts the child?

could abuse be mitigated by additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for interrupting a TV show?

i was usually "swatted" by my grandmother for defiance as i recall (i'm sure i deserved it, but the switching didn't curb the behavior -- i'm still a smartass). my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use help getting outside my own experience.

[FreedomAngel82]

132. So what are you going to do?

Send that parent away from their child because of an incidnet you know of? How would that help the child to be away from their mother, father and any siblings?

[theboss]

240. Next time you piss me off, can I come over and ground you?

We are not talking about two disconnected adults here.

Parents need to be able to raise their children as they see fit.

As long as parents are not abusing their kids, the state can stay the hell out of the home.

[theboss]

241. Next time you piss me off, can I come over and ground you?

We are not talking about two disconnected adults here.

Parents need to be able to raise their children as they see fit.

As long as parents are not abusing their kids, the state can stay the hell out of the home.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Give.Me.A.Fucking..Break! What a dumbass move....I don't have kids

I don't want kids, I don't need kids to make me "whole", but reasonable parental discipline is not a matter for the state. And spanking-IMHO-is a reasonable response if the PARENT chooses.

How dare the state stick its goddamned nose into this. Stay out of my house, stay out of my bedroom, let me read and smoke and drink what I like, and let me raise my children WITHOUT guidance from my government.

Its not their place and I resent it.

[K-W]

32. Violence is not reasonable.

It is not only completely unethical, it is counterproductive. The instinct to hit things that disobey you is not the hight of human social behavior.

How dare a parent abuse his special relationship with his child to violate his childs rights. Aim your anger where it belongs, at parents who allow thier desire for revenge determine thier response to thier children's behavior.

[Rowdyboy]

62. The government has a role....IMO that role does NOT extend into

telling parents how to discipline their children. You consider all spanking violence and, as such,unacceptable. I respectfully disagree. I was spanked and "switched" as a child. As an adult, I find my parents/aunts spankings of me in no way inappropriate, violent or unreasonable.

The government's job is to protect our freedoms, not regulate our personal family behavior. If you abuse or mistreat your children, there is an apparatus to take them away from you. But for the government to say that you have no right to discipline your kids by spanking gives the government far more authority than I want it to have when facing a George Bush appointed supreme court.

If its okay for them to tell you how to raise your kids, why can't the government regulate what you eat (your health), what you read(your emotional state) or your sex life (your moral life). Those are not questions the government has any business regulating.

Don't tell me what to eat, or drink, or smoke-who to have sex with, what positions to have it in, or how to raise my children. Its none of the governments business, unless abuse is occuring. In that case there is a legal procedure in place to deal with the situation. I don't want a "mommy" or a "nanny" government. I want one that leaves me alone whenever possible, and lets me live my life unsupervised.

[K-W]

69. Your children arent beer, cigarettes or a consenting woman.

It isnt your businesss.

A child is a human being who deserves just as much protection as you do from being forcibally restrained and spanked against his/her will. There is no ethical or legal justification for spaking and removing the rights of children simply because some parents would prefer to be able to hit thier kids.

[Rowdyboy]

81. I don't have any children, but, if I did, I would have no interest in

child-rearing advice from you or anyone else unless I specifically asked for it-and that especially includes the government. Thats not a slam against you-its just a fact. How I raise my kids (that I don't have and never will) is none of your business.

Thankfully, we haven't QUITE entered that nightmare world. However, give it a few years. I'm sure the coming Bush Theocracy will appreciate any imput on regulating my personal behavior. Theocrats just LOVE to tell people how to live their lives and how to behave in private. They know so much more than everyone else and they have your best interests at heart.....Sure they do....

[Pithlet]

85. Children have human rights

Do they not? Children are people, right? Should a parent's rights to do whatever the hell they feel infringe on those rights? Or are human rights only something you acquire after you grow up?

This isn't about parenting advice. This is about upholding human rights for all. Including children. I don't have the right to pick up a belt or a switch and hit you, do I? Because you have the right to make it through the day, every day, without facing that. From anyone. So do children. From anyone. Including their parents.

[Rowdyboy]

103. Luckily for the world, I don't have kids nor will I ever because-under the

standards you guys set-I would be an abuser. I'll be sure mention that to my 22 year old god-daughter when I see her next month. Bet she'll get a laugh out of it too.

Of course children have a right not to be abused-but swatting a baby's bottom, or switching a two year old legs is not abuse in my opinion. They're too young to understand a "time-out" then and they need some guidance. By the age of 3-4, spanking should stop because the parent SHOULD be able to teach the child through more reasonable methods by that age. Obviously, you are free to disagree and raise your kids differently but how I raise mine is not your business. And thats my point. Short of physical abuse, how a parent raises a child is none of the governments business.

I never mentioned a belt. I was never beaten, nor would I ever dream of beating a child. Thats cruel and barbaric. It is totally unreasonable to compare spanking the padded diaper of a three year old child with beating a kid with a belt.

The purpose of spanking is not to hurt the child or beat him into submission. The purpose is to gain attention as to what constitutes unacceptable, dangerous, even life-threatening behavior.

[K-W]

106. The purpose of spanking is to hurt the child, or nobody would do it.

If it didnt hurt the child it wouldnt be a punishment.

The purpose of spanking is not to gain attention. Using physical force to alert someone of a threat is not spanking.

Once again, simply make it two adults and it becomes failry clear.

If you are about to be hit by a car and I push you out of the way it is not the same as if I pushed you to punish you for your actions.

Spanking is the practice of using the pain of slapping as a punishment.

[Rowdyboy]

155. So, obviously, you and I are in fundamental disagreement on an issue

that neither of us will ever willingly compromise on. However, in the total scheme of things, its a relatively minor issue and, overall, we probably agree on many more important issues than we disagree.

So long as I never babysit your kids, I see no way it should cause a problem between us. Hope you can overlook my "old school" approach.

[Pithlet]

109. See

I'm not necessarily for an all out ban on all spanking. Because I don't think all spanking falls into the category of abuse. I'm not all up in arms about it, because I don't think it's the huge intrusion that others think it is. I have no problem with an all out ban, it's just not something I would advocate. I do not feel all spankings cross the abuse line. Preventing a parent from hitting their child is just not worthy of outrage, to me.

My whole problem is with the argument that this is a privacy deal, and that is the argument that many pro-spankers seem to be using. This has nothing to do with privacy, because this isn't about individual rights. This is about the right to not do something to ANOTHER person. And if society, or enough people in it, decide that an action crosses the line into abuse, then they have the right to step in and say parents can't do it. If Massachusetts decides that an action crosses the line and is abusive, then they are not intruding into a private matter.

When we start allowing parents to do things because it is a privacy issue, then that is stating that children do not have their own rights separate from their parents. And I don't care what the issue is, that is never the correct angle to take.

[FreedomAngel82]

151. It's not a huge intrusion?

It most certainly is!! I want to have children someday. Are you tell me I won't be able to whoop my child's butt if he/she does something wrong? What would you think if you had a child and you whooped their butt. Someone saw you and called in about it. The police came and arrested you and took your child away from you. Because your child was out of control and you gave them a swat on their butt. That's intrusion and it's NONE of YOUR fucking business.

[Pithlet]

160. Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Your child is a human being with basic human rights. You do not get to intrude on those rights just because it is your child. All human beings deserve to make it through their days without having their butt "whooped". Your child does not belong to you. They're in your care, but they're not your property to do with as you wish. I'm assuming you're not just talking about a single light swat on a clothed butt when you say "whoop". I sincerely hope not, for your future kids' sakes. You don't have the right to "whoop" your spouse? Why should you have that right to do it to a child? Is the law intruding when they tell you you can't beat your spouse?

I never whoop my children's' butts, and I never will. I don't have to worry about getting arrested because of it any more than I have to worry about getting arrested for taking a belt to my neighbor. Because I plan to do neither. Ever.

[Rowdyboy]

178. Its really not an issue that matters much to me....My sisters adopted the

approach that spanking (and discipline in general) is counterproductive and that children should be treasured, supported, loved and praised only. They were determined not to "mistreat" their kids like they had been "mistreated".Today, I have a 17 year old nephew who is father to a two year old and is a high school dropout. He's already totaled three cars and has a fourth (all bought by his parents who really "love" him). I BOUGHT my first car at age 23. I also have a 15 year old niece with a newborn in about the same shape, though thankfully no one's bought her a car yet...

The lack of appropriate parental discipline is, in itself, the ultimate form of child abuse.

[Pithlet]

206. And you have no way of knowing if that was becaue they weren't

spanked. I've known plenty of people who's lives were absolute shit, and they got into all kinds of trouble, and they had been spanked regularly. As far as that goes, you have no way of knowing if the parenting style was even an issue, or if it was, to what extent.

It isn't whether or not a parent spanks that makes a difference. Sometimes nothing does. Despite our best efforts, those things happen.

[Rowdyboy]

223. I personally, do not remember ever being spanked.....I was too young

I was the oldest child, so I know my siblings were. The discipline I'm talking about is not an "ass-whuppin'" you remember for life. Its mildly correctional.

Certainly, I've had friends who were abused as children and you better believe you can tell it now that they're adults. But I'm not talking about belting or beating or hitting. I'm talking about spatting the diaper covered butt of a three year old whose running for the street.

Guess I just grew up in a more violent time. Thankfully, the world has nothing to fear from my children because I have cleverly managed to avoid having any.

[K-W]

90. You seem to think your children are your property.

You seem to think that while the state has an interest when I walk up to another adult and hit them, it doesnt have an interest when a parent walks up to a child and hits them. You think the special relationship that a parent has with a child gives them a liscense to treat thier child in a way that would be considered criminal in any other social context.

That is not a nightmare world. If me smacking someome is illegal, me smaking my child should be illegal. Since when is equal protection a nightmare world?

So people should be allowed to murder other people as long as they do it in private? I think not, in fact something being private has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is legitimate fare for legal intervention. Your right to privacy like ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS is contingent upon your exercise of it not infringing on the rights of others. You cannot use your right to privacy as an excuse to hit anyone.

The question isnt whether something is private, the question is the rights of the people involved. Parents are allowed, indeed obligated to control thier children, this does not provide them carte blanche and never has. There is no reason not to enforce the very basic ethics of violence in parent child relationships except that many parents insist on retaining the priviledge of hurting thier children.

[FreedomAngel82]

149. And it isn't your business either

[FreedomAngel82]

148. And who are you to decide?

If you're out in public and you see a mother slap her child on the wrist or on his/her butt how do you know what's going on? Are you going to call the authorities and take away the mother from the child because of one incident you know NOTHING about? You don't know the situation and why the child was given a slap on the butt or wrist. I have a cousin who is wild. About two weeks ago we were visiting them and he bit my brother on the stomach and the mother gave him a whoop on his butt. Are you saying she has no right to punish him for something he did to my brother?

[nashville_brook]

305. rowdyboy: please help me understand

i totally agree with you on keeping the government out of parenting. talk about a slippery slope. i smoke, too, so i definitely feel you on intrusiveness!

but i want to ask posters to this thread about spanking b/c i'm working on a column dealing with parental disiciple and authority and i need help getting outside of my own experience with this issue.

my intuition is that harmful spanking or abuse involves robbing the child of self respect. so, it's a "functional" definition. you seem to say that spanking is parental perogative no matter what. am i getting this right?

my question to you is: what are the limits of "reasonable" parental discipline? are there any?

when does discipline constitute "abuse?" like, running out into the street and getting a spanking makes sense, b/c the kid is in danger. what if the kid is annoying the living hell out of you :) is it abuse to spank if it's for the narcissism and/or comfort of the parent?

does abuse involve the age of the child? such as if the kid is too young to understand? could abuse be defined by emotional damage to the child? or just physical?

my grandmother (adopted) would cut "switches" -- thin, green tree branches -- and would swat me raising welts. her intention was to only to hit my arms and legs, but she'd get so mad that she'd close her eyes and start swinging, catching me in the eye, on the face, neck -- anywhere she could get to. she'd go and cut new switches and sit on the back porch peeling them in front of me so i'd know she was "loaded" adding a component of terror to reduce recitivism.

is it unreasonable if the parent gets out of control?

could abuse be mitigated by additional disscussion such as, "you're not a bad kid, you just need to ___________." does it have to do with only punishing behaviors that are dangerous to the kid? like, is it overboard to punish them for interrupting a TV show?

i was usually "swatted" by my grandmother for defiance as i recall (i'm sure i deserved it, but the switching didn't curb the behavior -- i'm still a smartass). my grandfather would "switch" me for being loud and disturbing his evening news.

i'm not trying to inflame... but this thread is fortuitous given the column i'm working on and i could really use some input from DU'ers.

post here or PM me if like. i could really use some input!

[Pithlet]

12. To a few in this thread: This is NOT a privacy issue

Our children are not our property to do with as we wish. It is not okay to hit other people, our own children included. And the law has the right to tell us we cannot hit others, including our own children. This is no more an invasion of privacy than it is to say it is against the law to slap your neighbor.

The man who hit his son with a belt SHOULD go to jail, just as anyone should.

[seabeyond]

15. then my parents should be in jail. anyone elses parents

that is your opinion and yours alone, but i tell you, want to lose people in the democratic party, and want to lose elections from here on out, bring it on. you tell these parents they lose their child for spanking, and watch what you create.

and there will come a time when a repug will say they will not do democrat cause of nanny mentality, and the people on this board will rise and say, what, what, what did we do

this

[Pithlet]

17. It is not merely my opinion

Apparently enough people feel this way to make it a crime. And, yes, any parent caught should go to jail. That would extend to my father as well, I understand. And it is NOT just my opinion that children aren't property. No one human being owns another.

[seabeyond]

33. oh my god, this is the extreme of hate. oh lord

let the democrats fill up that concentration camp. that is just sick. and totally non thinking. anybody that has such narrow and limited thinking, should never raise a child i deem it to be so. btw,......i would never judge the working mom. you know the healthy well balanced children, the one a parents stays home. i think all families should have one aprent taking care of child. i think it is umpteemth more damaging for a child to be raised by day care than a parent. and because i think it is just wrong for someone else to raise i child i deem it to be so. at least i have studies backing me

instead of saying there is a higher in all things including a two working family home, a woman has right to work, some have to both work, and i will raise my family as i see fit and stay home, and not judge the working mom.

oh and those parent that give their children too much sugar causing diabetes, and those parents that allow children to get fat, facts show this is a huge problem, and for me way over a one time spanking, i want those children taken out of the house too

[Pithlet]

36. You are way over the top

Children are separate human beings. What is not to get about that? No one is talking about concentration camps (What a highly offensive thing for you to say, BTW), here. They're talking about protecting EVERYONE'S rights, and that includes children. Beating your kid with a belt should result in an assault and abuse charge. Your child has the right not to be beaten. You don't own them. What is so hard to understand about that?

I often agree with you on a lot of issues, but I think you are way off base on your assertion that this is a privacy issue and that it is no one else's business what happens to children. Children have human rights as well. It is not something you acquire when you grow up and leave home.

[seabeyond]

48. then i tell you riase a voice at a child i want equal punishment

put a social child in isolation, i want the same and equal punishment. whatever punishment a parent choses they do by knowing that child and what will be the most effective in creating a stimulus for the child to have them think twice. all should equally be punished, cause though it isnt causing a physical pain, it will an emotional. get mad at the child or disappointed you have caused an equal emotional pain as a physical pain. this may surprise you but my son being one, some kids say they prefer a spanking. it is a couple hits and done with and they go one with life. last time this was on board, i was talking to my boy, he said he would prefer a spanking to my yelling

and you are the one that said that parent should go to jail. you are going to need a lot larger than a prison to put all the parents you are going to be arresting.

btw it is really offensive your arrogance in dictating to a parent as if you know KNOW better

[Pithlet]

52. And it is offensive of you

to demand that children have no rights. The state has the obligation to protect children from everyone, INCLUDING THEIR PARENTS. And your assertion that this isn't the case goes beyond offensive. Children aren't chattel. They belong to you no more than your spouse belongs to you. You can't beat your spouse, can you? Why isn't THAT an invasion of privacy? I mean, I'm sure glad that if my husband had a sudden violent change in personality, and beat me, that the state could intrude on our privacy in THAT matter. Why do children not get afforded the same protection? Because the jails would fill up? That is your defense?

[TimeChaser]

54. There's a difference...

Giving a child a spanking is different than "beating" anyone up. I don't know what kind of spanking you've been exposed to, but "beating" a child and "spanking" a child are completly different.

[Pithlet]

56. I'm referring to using belts or other objects

The father that was arrested used a belt. I wouldn't lump all spanking into the abuse category, even if I'm personally against it as an effective parenting method.

[FreedomAngel82]

158. You're the one who is over the top!!!

You're wanting to send a parent to jail for whooping their child's butt for something you know NOTHING ABOUT! Next I won't be able to have an abortion!!! Are you saying that as well? The fetus' will have rights next? My God!

[Pithlet]

190. No. I won't. Be telling you. You can't have an abortion.

Let's try this AGAIN. Aborion isn't intruding on anyone else's rights. WHOOPING, however, is. That is the difference. Abortion is a privacy issue. Whooping is not.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

319. Explain

that one to me please. How is abortion a privacy issue and a paren't choice of discipline is not. Abortion is after all the elimination of a living thing. To clarify I am pro choice and I do not subscribe to the it's a baby at conception. However, we can all agree that it is in fact a living thing on it's way to being a human being just like you and me. So again, what's the difference? Other than you personally are in favor of one and not the other.

[LeftyMom]

191. Are you suggesting that children shouldn't have legal rights

beacause the rights might creep past that clear line of demarcation (birth) and effect babies in utero? We have to keep hitting children legal to preserve Roe?

:wtf: :eyes: :argh:

[FreedomAngel82]

157. How dare you

So because a parent whoops a child's butt they should go to jail?! HOW DARE YOU!

[LeftyMom]

180. If you didn the same to a spouse they'd haul you away in a squad car

Why should it be illegal to hit one's 100+ pound wife, who can probably defend herself, but not one's 30 pound toddler, who not only can't defend themself but doesn't probably understand cause and effect well enough to connect the punishment with the crime?

[Yupster]

334. I think there's a lot of spouse spanking

that goes on behind closed doors... if you know what I mean. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

[Yupster]

333. This issue is a Republican consultant's

wet dream.

Could Democratic legislators really be this stupid?

[LeftyMom]

19. agreed

and it always bothers me to see so many non-parents outraged whenever thier percieved right to spank/circumcise/bottlefeed/inserttopichere thier hypothetical children is at issue, because they have no. fucking. idea. what it's actually like to raise a child.

You know what? My parents spanked me, I came out fine. They also drove me around without a carseat in a pinto wagon at the age of four, routinely left me alone with my younger sister overnight at the age of seven or eight and let me fire off illegal fireworks by the case. I never owned a bike helmet, our pool had no safety fence or alarm, and for half my childhood the lock on our front door didn't work. Just because our parents did something and we survived it, it doesn't mean it was a good idea or something we should replicate with our own kids.

I edited to fix a typo, but like sharks' teeth, another will come forward to take it's place. Such is life.

[Pithlet]

26. Thank you. Too many people see children as nothing but chattle

when it comes to human rights. Children are separate human beings with their own rights. They have a right not to get beaten with a belt. That father absolutely should have gone to jail.

[seabeyond]

58. bullshit, dont give that to me

a little repug trick. because you say it, it must be true. because i dont believe you have a right to interfer with a parent decision, you create me into a person that see children as no more than chattle, whatever that means. does not mean i see children as chattle. how dare you. see the arrogance in you. i dont agree with you, ergo, i see children as nothing more than chattle.

wow

[Pithlet]

71. Don't tell me what arguments I can use.

Don't tell me what I can say in this thread. I wasn't even responding to you in that post. Cut it out.

I'm not creating you into anything. I'm responding to things you are saying on a message board. You insist that this is a matter of privacy, do you not? You say that it is none of anyone else's business, haven't you? I'm countering those statements, telling you that it IS everyone else's business because children have the same rights as everyone else. If you want to make this personal, and get bent out of shape, there's nothing I can to about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. So let me get this straight...

You think it should be a crime to bottlefeed?

[LeftyMom]

45. Where did I say that?

I said it amuses and annoys me when non-parents (especially non-parents who plan to stay that way) get thier pubes in a knot about thorny parenting issues.

Leftymom's positions on thorny parenting issues (for the record):

-Breastfeeding should be encouraged, all WIC offices and OBGYN or pediatric care providers should have someone who is trained in breastfeeding or an experienced peer counselor to help women establish breastfeeding and deal with common issues like thrush and bad latch. When breastfeeding isn't possible or a supplementary feeding option really is needed, more donor milk should be availible at a reasonable cost. Formula shoud be availible, but marketing should be regulated in accordance with the WHO code and tighter controls on quality should exist (because the stuff gets recalled a lot.)

FWIW, I put my son on the bottle after a few months because astonishingly bad advice led to low supply.

-Circumcision of minors should be illegal, except when needed to correct deformities of the penis that will not respond to more conservative treatment. (This should be rare, in countries where neonatal circumcision does not occur, the circumcision rate later in life is about 1%.)

-Spanking should be illegal, and punishment should be equivalent to other domestic violence offenses.

There, now you know my opinions, flame away.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Flame, Shmame.

First of all, I AM a parent. So I hope that qualifies me to have an opinion.

Secondly, I agree with you that Breastfeeding is best for babies. I'm not a woman, I don't have breasts, but I DO happen to know that childbirth and parenting seems to be one of those human endeavours where many people have a capital-A Agenda and, strangely like religion, you don't have to throw a rock very far before you hit people who are convinced that they alone have the ONE TRUE WAY to do everything. What you say about "astoundingly bad advice" rings true over here. We hadn't been in the hospital more than a day after a very hard delivery and my wife had already recieved twelve different pieces of totally contradictory advice about breastfeeding.

Some women can't breastfeed. It doesn't always work out. That's reality. But I don't see what's to be gained by hectoring or guilt tripping them about bottlefeeding. Put the information out there, and respect that people make up their own minds about things. I guess some people respond well to being preached at, but I sure don't.

Circumcision: Again, that's one we struggled with, particularly because my wife is Jewish (technically, I am, too- but I consider myself a metaphysical free agent) and we were actually leaning towards doing it, in no small part because I have one case in my immediate family of a person who chose to have it done- painfully- later in life, and I also have a teenaged male relative in my family who wasn't and now he is unhappy about the decision (this may have something to do with the community he lives in) but in the end, once we saw our son, we just couldn't do it. Bottom line, it's not my body and thus it's not my decision. End of story. But I came to that conclusion myself. I'm not going to sit here and say that my opinion on the matter should be LAW for everyone else. Likewise, I respect the views of someone who says they saw an ultrasound at 3 months and it changed how they would personally feel about getting an abortion.. but to expand out that personal level of belief to the point of making everyone else's decisions for them, I think is the wrong way to go about things. I have to respect the rights of other people to come to different conclusions than myself. Do I think circumcision is necessary? No. Do I think it's a great big HUGE evil? No, not really. Do I feel robbed of my own foreskin? No, I don't, and I've managed to get a great deal of pleasure out of my johnson without it... But Lastly, After giving the matter careful consideration, and considering that it's not necessary, could I allow it to be done to my son? Hell no.

Spanking: I don't believe in it, I think it is bad parenting, but I do think that there is a distinction between swats on the butt and beating with a belt. So, is it worth passing laws to make every parent who puts a kid over their knee a criminal? Really?? I mean, don't we have enough unenforceable laws on the books as it is? I don't know about yours, but MY tax dollars are already very busy waging illegal wars in the Mideast and jailing unprecented numbers of non-violent drug users.. I'm really not sure they can take time off to run around locking up every parent who spanks a child.

I personally think the knee-jerk instinct to criminalize things people personally don't approve of is one of the big problems in this country. Should child abuse be illegal? Of course. But if you lump every swat to a tush in with child abuse, you're creating a law enforcement problem of gargantuan proportions, and I happen to think you diminish the seriousness of real, hard-core child abuse. For instance, in high school I dated a girl whose Fundy parents used to beat her with a soup ladle. Now, that was abuse and they should have been visited by the cops. In retrospect, if I was the person I am now, I would have reported it. But if you're gonna throw that in with every parent who spanks... you see where I'm going.

Add to that the logistics involved in rounding up all the mohels and throwing them in mohel jail... frankly, the mind boggles.

[LeftyMom]

168. I do admit my opinions are a bit if-I-ruled-the-worldish

so how about this:

Breastfeeding as my above statement. I don't think I said anything terribly inflamatory or unreasonable there (for example I've seen some people suggest formula should be by prescription only, and I think that's stupid,) although having to market formula ethicly would mightily piss off Nestle.

Circumcsion would not be covered by state or federal medical insurance or medical aid, except in verified cases of penile malformation non-responsive to other methods. Insurers that haven't already would probably drop coverage following the feds lead. All circumcisions would be legally required to be performed with adequate pain meds (a combination of EMLA creme on the injection site,a dorsal ring block and followup care with an oral pain releiver for several days afterward is widely regarded as the best method, and rarely performed, because it's time consuming.) In order to provide fully informed consent parents requesting circumcision would be required to view a procedure performed by the same method to be used on thier child, and both parents must provide written informed consent (currently some parents have the child circumsised against the wishes of thier partner by practices that do not require both parents consent.)

Spanking should be illegal, however first offenses in cases where no visible injury occured should result in parenting classes and no further punishment.

There, is that a bit more real world?

[seabeyond]

181. and the second time that child is spanked

are you willing to pull that child out of his home. a lifetime there. with loving parents. parents he loves with all his heart. his brothers and sisters. or are we pulling out the brothers and sisters. and finding different homes for them all.

i mean this is getting more and more gross.

better start finding more and more foster homes. or building orphanges.

[LeftyMom]

184. Loving and hitting aren't mutually compatible nt

[seabeyond]

201. i disagree

and i think that any parent that did spank,......not any, a lot of parents that chose spanking as a punishment will disagree

you arent going to get. i am sure. so i wont even try to give it to you.

but
i disagree

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Well, if we're talking about "if I ruled the world"..

:)

Hey, that's another, sky-was-yellow-and-the-sun-was-blue story. Or, as Bob Dylan might say, "Someday, everything's gonna be different".

Interestingly enough, our doctor, who we trust as a compassionate and fairly progressive guy, was the one who we talked to about the circumcision. He utilizes the same pain management protocol you outline, and really his assurance that it was not a massively traumatic event (and our belief that he wouldn't be doing it if he thought it was) for the babies he saw was a pretty big factor in why we were leaning towards doing it. But in the end, we really couldn't justify it or go through with it, and I feel that was the right decision.

As far as formula, what I know about the behavior of the formula companies, particularly in the third world, is atrocious. Clearly that's an area where there should be serious oversight. There's no doubt in my mind that breastfeeding is better; for sure for our baby it was.

The thing I related about the truck-driving yahoo in the coffee shop sums up how I, personally, feel about spanking. I'm the first to admit that bad parenting may be responsible for a good portion of the brutish stupidity displayed by my fellow primates. I'm just not sure if legislating that kind of thing really would go anywhere towards improving it.

[FreedomAngel82]

161. Fucking ridiculous!

So you're willing to do more damage to a child emotionally by taking their parent away then by a little whoop on the butt? I know lots of Christian families who even whoop their kids on the butt if they do something out of control. Are you going to tell them that they can't spank their kids and if they do they're going to jail? How would you feel being five years old and watching your mother AND father go to jail and never see them again because you're being turned over to the state. And what if those people in control of you spank you too? You'd be going around forever. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life. Whoever created this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

[LeftyMom]

174. What does thier Christianity have to do with it?

I can't really picture Jesus taking a kid over his knee, isn't that who Chirstians are supposed to be emulating?

[Yupster]

335. My wife and I are parents

and we've muddled through making our own best decisions on how to bring up our kid. No doubt we've made mistakes, but we've done our best and read and thought as much as we could before addressing problesm that came up. Sometimes we would talk for weeks about a problem and the best way to address it before putting the plan into implementation.

No doubt the decisions we made weren't the same ones you made in each occasion.

But at least we each got to make our own decisions for our own kids without the government telling us what to do.

My wife and I thought an awful long time and did a lot of research on how we thought our kid would react to different things and which methods would work well with him.

That's a whole lot better than following a government that doesn't know my kid from yours, and is just as prone to err as my wife and I are.

[FreedomAngel82]

153. So tell me then

Is it not privacy to have an abortion? Or do they have rights as a fetus too? Are you now for abortion?

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I think spanking is generally bad parenting.

I would make exceptions for certain situations, like when a toddler runs into the street and there is no other way to communicate the dangerousness of the behavior besides a quick swat on the bottom.

But overall, I think it's bad parenting, if not an indicator of something worse. I was getting coffee a month or so ago, and I saw some short-haired, monster truck driving yahoo smack his six year old boy- hard- because the kid had the temerity to go look out the window and smile at people... and didn't come punctually enough when dad the flaming asshole would-be drill sargeant ordered him to.

Those kind of people make me sick. No doubt.

That said, I think passing laws against ALL spanking, period, is excessive. Clearly no one should be able to beat their children (and I would include using belts, pieces of wood, paddles, or those fucking "jesus rods" that James Dobson 's gang has been peddling of late) ...but outlawing all spanking, period- I consider that a bit of an overreach.

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. As someone who was spanked, whipped and slapped, I gotta say...

...that "hot saucing" is just some damn sick shit. You gotta be a real sick fuck to even think of doing that to a child. You have to be reeeeeal comfortable with your inner sadist to concieve of such a thing. Tricking a child into eating hot sauce is something that bullies do. Deliberately and premeditatively forcing your own child to ingest hot sauce as a form of "punishment" is just plain sick.

Fuck, a whole bunch of people need to stop breathing.

[K-W]

34. Dont people realize that its the exact same sensation

as being burned. Its like putting a cigarette out on a kids tongue without the cleanup and evidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Well, it's okay for the Humboldt Police to swab pepper spray

into protesters' eyes. It's fine for "interrogators" at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib to waterboard people- i.e. strap them to a piece of wood and hold them underwater.

Really, the way our society has people treating each other, it's not surprising to me that so many sick fucks are getting creative with ways to "discipline" their children- even infants, as was discussed in the previous thread about the religious right minister who talks about the need to "break the spirit" before age ONE.

I think most of these behaviors, including beating your kids with implements like rods or belts, certainly forcing them to eat hot sauce (I love hot sauce, but it was an acquired taste that took many years!) all, in my mind, slide into the area of child abuse. I'm not sure criminalizing ALL spanking is, legislatively, such a good idea, but if it really ended up as a catalyst to encourage more humane treatment of our children (and, by extension, all humanity in the future) maybe it's not such a bad idea.

[bloom]

80. "Victory for Forest Activists in Pepper Spray Trial"

04/28/2005 JURY FINDS SHERIFF'S AND POLICE USED EXCESSIVE FORCE


San Francisco, CA. - The jury has just returned a unanimous verdict for the activists/plaintiffs, finding the County of Humboldt and City of Eureka liable for excessive force used by Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies and Eureka Police Officers when they applied pepper spray directly to the eyes of the eight nonviolent forest defense protesters in three incidents in 1997. Former sheriff Dennis Lewis and present sheriff Gary Philp also were found liable for causing the use of excessive force by ordering the unprecedented use of pepper spray on the passive, locked together sit-in demonstrators.

http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=3174&category_id=14

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Hey, good news.

Guess I missed that in my paper, buried under coverage of the Jacko trial.

[OrlandoGator]

38. Spanking vs. beating. There's a difference.

I'm very glad my father spanked me as a kid when I misbehaved. It taught me early on that there are negative consequences when you screw up.

No slapping, no closed fist, no beating with objects, no whipping. Spanking. A whack on the butt.

Good parenting.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I think it's bad parenting, personally.

but I don't think it's criminal abuse.

[OrlandoGator]

46. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

It's possible to use spanking as a teaching tool and not necessarily an outlet for parental sadism. As I said, I'm grateful my dad spanked me as a kid.

[TimeChaser]

47. Agreed

When I was little, there were times when time out or rewards just didn't work, so I got spanked. And guess what, I turned out fine. Hell, I'm less violent than a lot of other people I know.

It's so great that some of you guys think my parents did such a horrible job raising me... :sarcasm:

[K-W]

73. There is a difference.

A difference in degree of pain and physical damage.

That difference in now way justifies spanking.

Just because spanking is a tradition, doesnt mean it is justified until proven unjustified. It is an obvious infringement on the rights of children, so it must be justified by more than just tradition and some public opinion, it must be proveably beneficial, and that proof simply does not exist.

[OrlandoGator]

84. I feel that my own upbringing proves that spanking is beneficial.

Maybe it's not for everyone. But it's certainly not abuse.

[K-W]

101. It is abuse, it is just of a different degree.

You just think it is justifiable abuse because the long term advantage of the tactic justifies the brief and mild nature of the pain.

You can try to prove spanking is beneficial with your upbringing, I dont think you will succeed, but it is difficult to prove anything that way.

[OrlandoGator]

111. Thankfully, the only person I have to convince is myself.

n/t

[K-W]

116. So if I convince myself that it is in your long term best interest to be

slapped in the face, that means I am right in doing so? Or is it only if I can use my special relationship with my child to justify it that I am allowed to just up and hit people because I feel like its right?

I guess it comes down to whether you think parents derive their right to control their children through the child's best interests or through special privilege.

[OrlandoGator]

121. Slap me in the face and find out the hard way.

n/t

[Yupster]

337. Everything is abuse

at some level.

It's abuse to make a kid get painful shots.

It's abuse to feed a kid food he doesn't want.

Anything is abuse.

It's just a matter of degree.

[funflower]

134. I'm sure your parents were terrific, but there are lots of other, more

effective, ways to maintain civility and help children develop a moral conscience.

Almost all adult Americans were spanked. Very few really have a well-developed moral sense.

[seabeyond]

146. Very few really have a well-developed moral sense

surely you jest. well come on into my neighborhood. i will introduce you to some people

that is a sad way of looking at the world. and certainly not what i see.

[funflower]

154. You must live in a blue neighborhood!

[seabeyond]

162. no, red as red can be

panhandle of texas

[funflower]

175. When I talk about moral development, I'm not just talking about

obeying laws, not cheating on your wife and so on. I'm talking about people developing a high level of respect and concern for all people and for nature. I think that sort of understanding cannot come simply from having one's infractions punished as a child.

[seabeyond]

194. i just have to come to the conclusion this height

off arrogance is compatible to the other side in their good christian way. they morally sit there and decide who the good christian is going down their list of rules, as you sit here and decide who has made the grade in moral development.

well i tell ya, i think moral development has something to do with not judging fellowman, not seeing the least of who a person is but all they can be. having the ability to look at the parent who spanks and seeing that is not all that person is, or all that family is. that there is a much greater picture. seeing the beauty and grace of who these people are.

you arent able to

i am able to

i have friends that have spanked their kids, and i assure you, they are not who you picture them to be. so how is it you get to create them into something that they are not. you wont liste, you wont consider, you wont reflect. it is merely your way, otherwise, it is wrong.

i guess we all have our own individual definition of moral development.

[funflower]

208. I'm not deciding who has reached my aspirational goal of high

moral development. I tend to imagine that people such as Gandhi and Mother Teresa may have been at that level, but I don't know.

I'm certainly not there.

I do know that's it's not just about learning to follow rules.

I don't think you know what I am able to see in people.

I was spanked, and I don't think my parents were child abusers. I also don't think it helped me develop to my fullest potential in terms of empathizing with my fellow beings.

You are quite correct that we all have, and are entitled to have, our own definition of moral development.

My personal belief is that lots of very nice people, including most of my friends and relatives, spank their kids. I also believe that, while it may deter undesirable behavior in the short run, it is not necessary nor is it helpful in assisting children to develop their own moral conscience to the highest possible level.

I think a lot of people believe that spanking is "necessary" to prevent a child from "running wild." I believe that it is not.

Many cultures do not spank, including many American subcultures, such as the Quakers. Their children are not morally worse than the children of those groups that do spank, in my opinion.

[seabeyond]

215. ok so with this post

i am going to take you at your words. surely you are not suggesting we pass a law on this. you know parents who spank and it is not abusive. you were spanked and it is not abusive.

you dont think it is the ultimate in child rearing

i agree. i dont spank either. my boys and i talk, a lot. i told my mom years ago, because my parenting is to convince them, that it behoves them, to adopt certain behaviors, it takes longer for me than the parent that just spanks. but ultimately the reward is, as they grow older, the will have such a solid foundation within themselves because all these years they had to take within and reflect

this parenting is tons harder, and tons more patience and tons more time. but i feel it is worth it. you cannot pass a law on this. if a person does not get this, they will not be able to teach the child. the best we could do is say they cant have kids.

and i cannot decide my way is the only way. i personally like it. another will not. i see things my brothers kids have over mine, with his totally different parenting.

there is a higher in all things. even in a spanking

[funflower]

220. I agree with everything you just said.

I'm not advocating for the proposed an anti-spanking law in Boston.

I know lots of great people who spank, and lots of great people who were spanked.

I'm just advocating for the idea that not spanking does not mean giving up hope of raising a child with a conscience and that you can achieve as good or better long-term result without spanking as with it.

:pals:

[Yupster]

339. Very few have a well-developed moral sense?

Well maybe not compared to the lofty heights of your amazing morality and imposing intellect, but the rest of us I guess will just have to muddle along with our partially-developed moral sense.

If only you could pass laws for the rest of us to follow so we'd be able to grow.

[FreedomAngel82]

169. So don't do it to your kids

but they're your kids and my little cousin isn't your kid so butt out.

[FreedomAngel82]

165. Yes there is a difference

A whack in the butt does sting and will hurt your feelings a few minutes, but then you're back playing or doing whatever. Abuse is extensive. What they want is spanking which is nothing. I know lots of parents at my church who whoop their kids on the butt. If this bill goes all over the place are they going to jail too?

[funflower]

40. I'm 100% against ANY spanking, but I'm not sure the public is ready

for a ban on it (as responses above show).

If you are thinking about becoming a parent, PLEASE educate yourself about this issue. It is absolutely NOT necessary to spank children in order to help them become moral adults (or even to keep them from running into the street). I never would have believed it, but my husband felt strongly about not spanking, and I've become a believer in the "no spank" way of parenting. It works!

"Hot saucing" ought to be banned.

[funflower]

43. Spanking is illegal in some countries (Norway, I think), and they are not

raising a generation of brats!

[LeftyMom]

50. Sweden banned spanking first in the 70's

The list of countries where spanking is illegal (from nospank.net)
Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy (by case law), Latvia, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine

[funflower]

131. Wow. Look at all those countries bringing up brats! (HAHA)

:toast:

[WillyT]

64. Jesus... What A Freak I Am... I Was Breastfed, Circumcised, And Spanked..

And I'm pretty well adjusted. Actually, I'm one of the most non-violent people I know.

And I love my parents unconditionally. I couldn't have possibly had a better childhood.

Abuse... I guess I was lucky enough to have spankings without abuse.

Go figure...

:shrug:

[FreedomAngel82]

173. Well then

I guess that makes me abused as well since my dad spanked me and my brother and even chased us around the house. :eyes: And my grandfather too got spanked. He even had to go and get his own whipping stick from the yard.

[Yupster]

340. But if only your parents hadn't spanked you

then you'd perhaps be president today, and Bush would be drunk getting spanked by some hottie in a jacuzzi somewhere. If only your parents hadn't screwed you up.

[seabeyond]

74. no more circumcisions

any parent that would dare to do that to their boy needs to go to jail. causes pain. and takes a good week to heal. and is done at the youngest of age. that it. we cannot allow this in our society. and there is not one valid good reason for it. just a belief, and screw what a parent believes, because we as a society are raising your children now, dontcha get it

[LeftyMom]

82. Exactly

Why the fuck should somebody be able to get 1/3 of someone else's penis cut off? Especially when it causes pain, isn't adequately medicted in almost all cases, leads to infection, can impede full function of the penis, has rare but serious consequences (including death and serious mutilation of the penis resulting in surgical gender reassignment) and is performed for no medical reason on a child to young to consent?

If you did the equivalent to a baby girl, or a non-consenting adult, or a pet, you'd do a long unpleasant stint in prison.

[Mythsaje]

86. Oh, I don't know

I STRONGLY recommend a non-vital surgical procedure for your pets. Spaying and neutering. NOT to do so is almost criminal UNLESS you're involved in serious efforts to improve the breed--not just so you can make money by selling the pups.

My oldest son (he's 11) isn't circumcised. If it doesn't cause him social problems later, I have no problem with it. If it does, and he himself decides to get it done later on, I hope it goes well.

I'll tell you this--I'm glad I don't remember having it done myself. That's not something I'd WANT to remember.

Honestly, not to come across as rude or anything, but I think this more or less falls under the same category as abortion--when YOU can get your penis trimmed, we can revisit the issue. Until then, it's pretty much an issue that us males understand a little better than women.

IMHO

[bloom]

91. I think it can only be compared to abortion

when the individual is making the choice for himself.

[Mythsaje]

98. You gotta understand

I wouldn't WANT to make that decision for myself. The very idea makes me wince. And it's comparable to abortion because it only involves a single gender. Women will never HAVE to make the choice for themselves.

[bloom]

107. To be on the same level

it would seem like it would take the mother making the decision for the daughter to have an abortion - or do plastic surgery on her as a baby.


(Seems like I saw a circumcision thread today or yesterday - this whole discussion could get hijacked.)

[Mythsaje]

115. Depends on the end result

I guess. If it causes lasting harm, then it's a problem. I'm just not sure male circumcision does.

It's interesting how this thread split, isn't it?

[bloom]

137. "If it causes lasting harm, then it's a problem"

There have been huge threads about this in the past - and yes it is always split - with strong feelings on both sides with people of either gender on either side.

I don't think it's a thing that parents should decide for their son - because the effects are irreversible - and not necessarily positive.

But I'm not campaigning for laws or anything.

In general - I would like to see society be less violent/aggressive and more nurturing and if anything - it's mostly going in the opposite direction.

[Mythsaje]

147. I would agree

that society seems to be going the wrong way. At least here in America. But, historically, we were never really going 'the right way.'

I'm, by nature, something of a diplomat and a peacemaker. I have mild social anxiety, which tends to make me leary of conflict, even though I'm rather good at it--verbal, text, or physical. But I realize it's almost always self-defeating and even the 'winner' ends up losing.

Humans are a predatory animal, with all the in-built programming that entails. We consider ourselves 'civilized,' but, if we compare ourselves to our historical precedents, we're not that much more civilized than they were. We have different hot buttons, but that's about it.

Even Europe, arguably more progressive and civilized than we are, has its weirdness...soccer riots come to mind. From my standpoint, that's violence with absolutely NO redeeming value. Then again, it sure beats the heck out of the 30 Years War.

[Yupster]

343. Now if we could only get a stadium

full of soccer hooligans to all spank each other, then that would be something we'd all pay to see.

[redqueen]

255. Male circumcision can cause lasting harm.

Mistakes in the procedure can cause severe deformity, loss of sensation... I've seen some horror stories.

Not to mention all those nerve endings that are lost... but I'll let the guys decide if they want to define that as 'harm'. ;)

[LeftyMom]

95. Well, LD agrees with me on that one (probably more so, 'cause if somebody

mentions the c-word he looks like he's fighting the urge to protect the family jewels with his hands. I haven't got the sympathy pain angle.)

You can't tell me that as a guy you would feel comfortable with someone telling you to butt out and mind your own business about infant clitoridectomies because you don't have a clit? If your wife and femal pediatrician decided to trim your daughter's labia, you'd shut up and go along, because you haven't got labia? I really hope that's not the case.

The problem with leaving the circ decision is that a lot of men are so emotionally invested in thier wang that they can't decide to do something different because that implies that thier penis is in some way imperfect. We mothers have and instinct to protect our infants that is less likely to be overriden by our ego, IMO.

[Mythsaje]

102. Different circumstances

It may seem like the same thing for you, but the fact is that a male circumcision and a female circumcision have very different results. The female is deprived of something that we believe she actually needs. (Well, some of us, anyway). The male is NOT, at least in the vast majority of cases.

[LeftyMom]

117. While the consequences of clitoridectomy are more severe

(partly because they occur in non-sterile conditions more often than not) both generally occur on non-consenting patients, without medical indication, and prevent full sexual enjoyment and function.

In men, circumcision lears to keratinzation of the glans and higher rates of sexual disfunction including premature ejaculation and erectile disfunction. In all cases circumcision prevents the gliding action of the foreskin, which keeps the vaginal area moist during sex and prevents discomfort. In cases where the frenulum is removed or crushed by the plastibell or clamp, men lose more receptors and sensitivity than in less drastic circumcisions where the frenulum is mostly intact and part or all of the foreskin is removed.

Both male and female circumcision are associated with cultural taboos to prevent sexual function. In the US circumcision of the general population was promoted to prevent masturbation, which at the time (late 1800s) was believed to be a cause of mental illness. In the 20th century, circumcision was promoted in US hospitals (and sometimes performed without consent of the parents on newborns or patient consent on men being sedated for other procedures) to prevent a host of problems including veneral disease, cervical cancer in female partners and penile cancer. The scientific data do not suppourt routine infant circumcision for those reasons or any other.

[Mythsaje]

123. So much

for preventing masturbation. Didn't work.

As far as the rest...interesting information. The hygiene argument is ridiculous--or so I've been told by a few people. Not a biggy.

See--I have nothing to compare it to. It's like asking someone who only had one parent (like me) what it's like. As if we have anything to compare it to. Except it's even more difficult in this circumstance because a person who only had one parent can at least gain SOME understanding of how a person with two parents might have grown up. I can't begin to imagine what sensations I might have lost being deprived of my foreskin. I'm stuck in the position of taking someone else's word for it. Even assuming that it's coming from a real scientific viewpoint, I still must decide whether or not they have any way to truly compare what I experience to what someone else experiences. They can literally say anything and I have no way to refute it.

[WillyT]

97. OK... Now I'm Totally Confused...

You don't remember having it done, yet you understand it better then women???

I can accept that only if you are talking about the implications later in life.

Otherwise... I'd bet your mom (a woman) remembers it well, and would therefore know more about its immediate impact on you than you do.

I don't remember it, and it has had no impact on my life that I've ever realized in my life.

Sorry.

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

105. this is an excellent post

as a mother it was the worst thing i went thru with my boys broke my heart and made me sick. it was horrible, for all you guys that dont remember

[Mythsaje]

108. No

it's something that affects me personally, and has done me no discernable harm. The state of my penis is between me and...my penis. It works as advertised and, despite it not having been my choice, and I feel in no way injured by the whole thing.

If a mother doesn't want her child to be circumcised, she has every right, at that point, to say 'no.' But then she's in the position of making the decision for someone unable to do so himself until he's much older, when, I'd hazard a guess, no man in his right mind would want it done.

I guess the question is how many men regret having been circumcised.

[Yupster]

342. Circumsicion was a tough decision

my wife and I made for our kid.

It was even worsier because my wife pretty much deferred the decision to me, which was probably the right call.

We read all we could, talked to everyone we knew. I talked to all the friends I knew who weren't circumsized and she talked to all her friends getting stories from their spouses and about old boyfriends which was funny. I learned all about smegma.

Finally we decided and snip we did.

Hopefully my son won't sue me when he's 21.

So far he seems pretty well adjusted. I think I am too.

Anyway, the reasoning was long thought out and very detailed and this isn't a circumsicion thread, so no need to go through it all here, but it was our/ my decision, and we/ I made it and so far we're happy with it, and kiddo seems to be too.

I'm glad it wasn't the government's call to make.

[WillyT]

89. Um... I Hate Ta Tell Ya This... But...

:rofl:

When they circumcised me...

they DID NOT take 1\3 of my penis away!

:rofl:

Otherwise... I'd be hangin about 30cm.

And while good for pornos, and lousy for dates...

I assure you... it was never so.

:rofl:

On the serious side though...

Has anybody here, asked any of the men here who are circumcised, whether or not they remember anything about it.

Cause I really cannot, and therefore don't find it as life altering as some make it seem. Unnecessary yes, but life altering???

I'm pretty sure it freaks the parents out though.

Hmm... maybe THAT'S IT???

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

99. skin coverage, not length

If circing was taking a couple inches off the average American penis, there'd be men (and deprived women) rioting in the streets! :) In soem cases where a bit too much shin is removed and tight erections result, it may prevent a man from living up to his full potential, but probably only by a centimeter or two in most cases.

[seabeyond]

100. well i think if you would ask the people that were spanked

a strong majority would say it isnt life altering either, but then we dont want any of that information cause doesnt work with agenda.

but i had to laugh at the 1/3 part, funny

you know what a bad mom that i am, never even discussed with my sons what we did to them so young, lol lol. just realized the other day. my son was outraged when i told him. he yelled at me for a half hour how wrong wrong wrong that was. i told him i didnt know, i didnt even think about it. just dad had it done so we did it. and now to find out, there really arent any health issues. and then to realize how silly it all was. and had to do to the second one cause we did it to the first.

i mean, that is horrible.

so, take my kids away

my hubby told me wasnt a good idea to say they chopped off part of penis, probably picturing all kinds of stuff.

this is stuff that will scar a child beyond any little ole spanking.

and that is the point, it is the whole of a family life. one spanking is not indicitive of all the child rearing. to isolate and solely point at that is so irresponsible.

[Yupster]

345. Years ago I saw Buddy Hackett in concert

and he said he didn't have a very big penis. In fact when he got o heaven St Peter would give him the other half that they chopped off so many years ago and then he'd be happy.

[Mythsaje]

77. My position

is that spanking isn't a good idea.

In most cases.

Like most forms of punishment, if over-used, or used inconsistantly, it is self-defeating. Same with screaming at your kid. Over time they'll become immune and you'll find yourself with no 'last resort' option left.

But...and this is a big but...if parents are held legally responsible for the actions of their children--either criminally or financially, it's not fair to take away any reasonable method of punishment. There are times when spanking is the only option you have left. When you've done everything else and it seems as though the child is bound and determine to defy you.

Violence in defense of self is usually considered acceptable. As is violence in defense of others. If spanking is what it takes to get the point across that your 3 y.o. isn't to go running through the house like his ass is on fire while the baby is playing on the floor, spanking (in a very limited way) is something that may be necessary.

This said...I don't think one should spank a child under the age of two for any reason. I also think spanking a child over the age of eight (or so) is pretty pointless. By that time reason should be your primary method of dealing with behavioral issues. If it isn't, you're not trying hard enough.

If you think about it rationally, we are predatory pack animals, not all that different in many ways from wolves and their domesticated cousins. If you watch a mother bitch with her puppies you will sometimes see her nip a pup (causing pain but no lasting damage) in order to discipline it.

This is a highly emotional subject. I realize this. And, as is the case with most things, I can see both sides of the argument. Spanking is something to be avoided whenever possible. But passing a law against it will simply contribute to the Police State that the current administration is implementing. It'll be one more excuse for the state to be snooping in your house and your neighbor's house--another excuse for children to be dropped into a severely damaged foster care system where spanking is anything but the worst possible thing they might be able to look forward to.

Anyone who's willing and able to look at the subject rationally rather than emotionally will have to admit that this is a complicated issue that cannot be solved by 'canned' rhetoric.

[bloom]

88. I think it could be done if

the punishments for the parents were reasonable - like going to parenting classes - for minor cases.

And yeah - probably nobody would know if someone was spanking - esp if it were minor. But if they DID - it would be easier to do something about.

It seems a lot of people assume that if there were a law that everyone would keep spanking like always and the police would have to arrest half the population.

It seems like now - it might not occur to a lot of people NOT to do it. With education - it doesn't seem that hard to get people using other methods of controlling behavior.

If Denmark and all doing it - I think we could also. Of course - a lot of those Scandinavian countries also have a "prison" system that is more homey and based more on the idea of helping people become more acclimated to society instead of the reverse. In some cases - parents have their children with them. It's more like apartments - with restrictions.

[seabeyond]

92. i guarentee bloom there are people

that are actually different than you and think different than you and believe different than you and make choices different than you.

you make your choices cause they make perfect sense to you. and you figure the reason others dont do it is because they just must not be educated, or know different ways. but that isnt the case. they just believe different than you

[bloom]

113. Well - I should probably go live

In Denmark or something - because I think a lot more like they do than what most United Statesians do.

And it would be nice to live in a society of more like-minded people.

[Mythsaje]

118. I would suggest

avoiding absolutes. Even something like this is nuanced and covers a lot of gray area. Saying, without caveat, that something is ABSOLUTELY one way or another usually ends up at a dead end, philosophically speaking. There is nearly always a 'yeah, but,' waiting somewhere in the wings.

My curse, or blessing, is that, even if I agree with an idea, I can almost always find that 'yeah, but.'

[bloom]

128. I don't know what your talking about.

Where did I say absolutely anything.

:shrug:

[Mythsaje]

139. Talking in general

saying 'spanking is bad' without exception, is playing into an absolutist mindset which avoids the fact that sometimes--just sometimes--it might not be.

[seabeyond]

119. i have four friends in town

all educated, good moms, good kids,...i am thinking of one in particular. they have all spanked. but one, she is so pc, she does everything right. she out does me as a mom, oh so much. there isnt a chance i could even come close to being as good as her. she spanks her kids. she will say calmly now collin, you know this si wrong, you are going to get a spanking. she doesnt do it often, but when it goes over her line she has patiently given those kids over these ten years, she does it. there is no negative effect on these kids, none.

you guys are really suggesting to me, that i look at this woman i have watched raise her children for ten years and condemn her. and it makes absolutely not a bit of sense to me what so ever. i could never support your position, looking at this woman.

i just cannot support it. and she is not the only one i know. and all i have known, they have never abused their children.

[bloom]

126. It's not like people are going

to be charged in retrospect.

I think people like your friends would probably go along with a law saying no spanking if there was such a law.

So it's not condemning them.

By your argument - society can never progress - try to improve - because to do so you have to say that people had been doing something wrong in the past.

[seabeyond]

129. no, she would vote republican

because, she feels what she is doing by spanking her son, when he has gone to a certain point, that she is exactly doing her job as a responsible parent. she wont buy your argument that it is abuse. she know better. she knows she is a kick ass mom, or at least i would hope she would know

she wont vote democrat ever. she will simply be offended and outraged., like i am. and i dont spank

[Yupster]

347. It's true

If this ever became a Republican-Democratic issue, a red algae-like tide would sweep the nation.

[FreedomAngel82]

177. Oh God it's so simple

You can either a) spank your kids or b) DON'T spank your kids. But please don't tell me how to raise kids when I have them. It's NONE of your business on my parenting skills. So please. The rightwingers have already invaded my bedroom, my school, my church and my hospital. Stay the fuck out of this.

[bloom]

267. Other people's parenting skills

are everyone's business - unless that person and his/her children live forever on their own island and never interact with any people outside of their family in any way.

And even then - Like with Pitcairn Island - the people were eventually taken to trial for the abuses being perpetuated even though they had become commonplace.

I think trying to change public opinion about it would have to be the first step.

Of course you have some wackos out there trying to defend the rights of parents to leave welts and bruises. They also seem to be getting more air time on the radio.


Mini Quiz:

"Indiana Moral Majority spokesperson Rev. Greg Dixon says that welts and bruises on children are:

1. a sign of child abuse which should be reported to the proper authorities;

2. a sign of disrespect for the human body, which is God's temple;

3. a sign that a parent is doing a good job on discipline.


http://216.220.97.17/corporal.htm

---

I don't think it's that different from in the recent past when men were allowed to beat/rape their wives. In some places I think that is still legal, also. Some things - I think it's worth it to have laws about. That doesn't mean that it will stop all cases. It does say that it is not socially acceptable.












the answer - is 3. Indiana Moral Majority spokesperson Rev. Greg Dixon says that welts and bruises on children are a sign that a parent is doing a good job on discipline.

[Yupster]

348. Do you know kids are a lot fatter than they were 20 years ago

And that's probably a lot bigger health concern than spanking.

What should we do to the parents raising fat kids on burgers and chicken strips?

[bloom]

360. Ban the commercials...eom

[Mythsaje]

96. You'd also think

by now that people would know better than to vote Republican. You can educate people out of destructive behavior, but it's damn hard to legislate.

Cultural conditioning tends to be much stronger than conditioning enforced by law. As long as a lot of people buy into the whole "spare the rod/spoil the child" philosophy, you're going to set up a scenario where it's impossible to win. People will defy the law because they believe it's wrong.

And, honestly, how are the authorities going to know if a child is being spanked (not abused, just spanked?) Take the kid's word for it?
Now THERE'S a good idea. Some kids aren't above a little blackmail if they think they can get away with it.

[bloom]

104. "how are the authorities going to know"

it's one of those things that if there is evidence (bruises, etc.) - it would be easier to do something because the threshold needed for proof would be lower.

[Mythsaje]

110. Evidence

I can just see it. "Spanked? Really? Let me see your butt."

And spanking shouldn't leave bruises anyway.

If I want I can cause someone excrutiating pain without leaving a mark on them.

[seabeyond]

114. if there are bruises they have gone over the line

isnt the where we have it now. i am not sure. but i think if a child has bruises the parent gets in trouble

[bloom]

122. Theoretically

the parent gets in trouble.

I know of a case where a teenage boy was smacked around by his dad. The police were called as a domestic situation. There was evidence. The dad got off because the jury thought he had a right to smack his son around. As if it were "discipline" when it wasn't.

There are probably thousands of cases like this. And part of the aspect of it is the opinion of the jury and the fact that they even though there was evidence of injury - they were reluctant to go against the so called "rights" of the parents.

[Mythsaje]

127. The bad part

is that the parent is legally and financially liable for the child. If he does something wrong, the parent can be held to be at fault. Rights and responsibility must be balanced. If the parent loses what s/he sees as a valid method of punishment, s/he is put in the position where his/her responsibilities outweigh his/her ability (right) to take action necessary to justify that responsibility.

[Pithlet]

143. That argument only holds

if the notion that spanking is the only effective means of control in all cases holds. And it doesn't. There are many many other methods available. Failure to spank is not what leads to the problems that get parents in trouble when their kids act out. In fact, physical punishment, especially taken to abusive extremes, can cause kids to act out. Some studies have shown it can lead to higher levels of agression in kids.

[Mythsaje]

171. I realize this

but to absolutely deny it as an option when it might, on occasion, do some good, does us all a great disservice.

I'm not talking about 'acting out.' I'm talking about it as a means to try to control particularly dangerous behaviors when nothing else seems to be working. People who are hyper-aggressive, who will spank their child for just about anything, are contributing to the problem, while someone who honestly and earnestly will do anything to avoid it, up to the point of allowing the child to run roughshod over them rather than use it as a last resort option, probably end up teaching their child the value of self-control, reason, and, in the end, the law of unintended consequences.

If all other punishments aren't effective, what other options are there?

Now, I'm coming from the perspective of someone who was seriously abused as a child. The punishments I received for my transgressions depended on my father's moods. There was no consistancy. THAT, in my opinion, can be much more likely to lead to anti-social behavior, in my opinion, than use of spanking as a 'final straw' option. Inconsistancy doesn't teach consequences, it teaches something else entirely.

[Guaranteed]

93. I'm of the opinion that if a parent isn't beating,

verbally abusing or neglecting their child, you let them do what they want. It's their choice as parents. People shouldn't be pushing their personal moral issues on other parents. Right?

I also have to say that I think this is the kind of stuff that middle America doesn't like- even when they agree with us. They don't like the moralizing, and they don't like feeling like they don't have a choice. They like coming to these kinds of "moral" conclusions on their own and making their own decisions. This just isn't going to play well.

[LittleClarkie]

112. Enforcing it should be a bitch

I'm not into telling a parent how to raise thier kid. A swat on the butt is not child abuse.

This law sounds entirely to invasive into people's lives.

[FreedomAngel82]

183. You know what this will lead to

Abortion. OOOoo we have to think of the fetus'!!! I can still have one of those right? :eyes: GET OUT OF MY LIFE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! I'm so sick and tired of the government butting into my life!!! They've gotten everything else! Why don't you come and take away my home for Christ's sakes?! I'm sick of it! Just get the fuck out!

[cynatnite]

203. It's coming if the puritanical SOBs get their way n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

243. Uh..the Puritans beat the crap out of the kids.

[LittleClarkie]

211. We should just let professionals rear our children

Get it...rear?...eh? eh?

Eh. It's late.

[Dave Reynolds]

120. Right. I really want

more fucking government intrusion into my fucking home.

I suppose we would have to have cameras in all rooms to make sure no clandestine spanking happens.

Spanking is not abuse.

[Pithlet]

125. It is not intrusive

I don't think all spanking is abuse. It's not the disagreeing with the law that bothers me, it is the defense that this is a privacy issue. But the government isn't being any more intrusive than when it says a person cannot beat their spouse. Rather than defending this as a privacy issue, parents who want to spank their children should be defending the act, and convincing people it is not abuse. But, don't claim it is no one else's business. Because children do have separate rights. And if the action of spanking cannot be effectively defended, than I have no problem with banning it.

[TimeChaser]

152. Okay, then here's a non-privacy defense for you...

As a lot of people know, it's hard (and often impossible) to reason with young children. They just aren't developed enough to listen to logic. Therefore you have to rely on instinct to teach when a behavior is unacceptable. All animals, humans included, will avoid behavior that has painful consequences (An example being butterflies that taste horrible or have a mild poison. After tasting one, an animal will not try to eat any other.) A few swats is enough to give a sting that the child will then associate with the bad behavior until they are old enough to understand why they shouldn't do it.

By no means should spanking leave bruises. And that hot saucing is sick, it can permanently damage taste buds.

[seabeyond]

172. my parents dabbed some on my nails to help me stop

biting. i thought it was a clever idea. i never thought it would be against the law. i bet they never thought so either. but then they werent pouring it down my throat as a punishment either.

are we going to have grey areas, or did parents break the law on that one too

and wouldnt the hot sauce to do already be considered abusive and not need a seperate law

[TimeChaser]

185. That might be a different case

What I'm refering to is putting undiluted hot sauce on a child's tounge as an alternative to spanking. I'm not sure if you could have burned your tounge on hot sauce that'd been sitting on your nails for a while.

Even if "hot saucing" is outlawed, I believe there are actual products similar to nail polish that are bitter for breaking a nail biting habit, btw. :shrug:

[Pithlet]

182. I have children, so well do I know

what it is like to reason with them. I do not think that a swat on the butt when a child attempts to run out in traffic is abuse. It's not how I would deal with it. I've managed to teach those things with nary a swat. It can be done.

I wouldn't argue that spanking isn't effective. But the damage it inflicts is not worth the trade off. It teaches that might makes right. That I'm bigger than you, therefore I can hit you because I don't like what you're doing. Because children can't reason, as you say, they can't understand that you're hurting them to teach them. All they know is you're hurting them. The lasting emotional effects just aren't worth it, especially since there are so many other, proven methods that don't involve violence of any kind.

[FreedomAngel82]

187. So that is you!

Do you not get it? It's YOU! YOU! NOT ME! Spanking IS NOT ABUSE!

[Pithlet]

189. You don't get it.

Your children aren't your property. You used the word "whoop" further upthread. Whooping is abuse. I agree that spanking isn't abuse, at least not up to a certain point. But, whooping is. You don't have the right to do that to ANY other human being, including your kids. Get it?

[FreedomAngel82]

193. And you don't get

that you don't know what the hell reason for it or definition for it. Whoop is a spank on the butt. Whoop for you could be something else. So please fucking butt out. Are you going to tell me I can't have an abortion next? I have to think of the children?

[Pithlet]

198. You can't have an abortion.

There. Are you happy? I said it. You'd better not have one. Nope. No way. No abortions for you.

[TimeChaser]

196. Lasting emotional effects?

I was spanked and I don't have any of those and neither do my siblings nor anyone else I know who was spanked (properly, no bruises, no belts, no beatings) as a child.

At the point in a child's development when spanking is most effective, and when done properly will result in an association of the behavoir with the pain, not the parent with the pain. Most of the reasoning you bring up is too complicated for a very young child.

[Pithlet]

202. So you say

There is evidence that that isn't always the case. It certainly isn't worth the risk. I don't think that it always has the same effects for every kid, and of course the level of spanking also varies from child to child.

I was spanked, too. Beaten actually, with a belt. It would be easy for me to say that I had no lasting effects. But, who knows what could have been? How would things be if, say, I had parents who understood that I was an individual with the right not to be beaten? Just about the only benefit I can see that it had with me is that I vow never to do that to my kids.

[seabeyond]

213. this is what really gets me on this spanking issue

all us that were spanked. all our friends that were spanked, all the siblings that were spanked, we are all ok with it. we have no lasting effects or scars. we are not violent. many of us choosing not to spank our kids

we say we arent bothered with our spankings. some of us even say we earned our spankings

yet, inevitably we are ignored and told how abusive and bad it was for us

now that takes just flat out arrogance to ignore the people that actually had it done to them. i talked to my 10 year old son, after the last spanking thread. told him how people were equating it to beating and abuse and how he saw it. he said, i would rather get a spanking and have it done and over with than you yelling at me. that hurts. i said, but, you havent been spanked. he says, physical pain doesnt hurt that much

so go figure.

people are purposely not being open, in deciding other peoples lives. and for me that is wrong and irresponsible. people are purposely creating this something it isnt to pass a law and punish parents with. and that is wrong.

i see friends that have spanked, and i see with my eyes that it isnt abusive. and i am being told to ignore what i see

[Pithlet]

216. You don't know that

Because you have no way of going back and reliving your life without spanking.

Listen. I understand the argument, even if I don't agree with it, that spanking is okay. I do not understand the argument that it is no one else's business. It is society's business if a parent harms their child, is it not? If I decide to brand my children with the mark of my family, is it no one else's business? I don't think you would argue that. You would want to see me go to jail, I'm sure. See, I think the argument that spanking is okay should come from the fact that it isn't harmful. NOT from the argument that it is no one else's business. Because, in arguing that, it is arguing that a parent can do whatever the hell they want. Since that clearly isn't the case, then it IS indeed, other people's business.

[seabeyond]

221. if my parents werent poor, i might have been a different person

if they werent so young i would be a different person. if athletics werent such the focus i would have been a different person.

now once again, to my suggestion how we are ignored saying we are fine, ......you ignored. dismissed.

see how that works

i dont care about your issue of seperation on privacy i have read all up and down the board. i care that the op was a law making it illegal to spank. that is my only concern

[Pithlet]

222. I didn't ignore it.

How can you accuse me of that? I addressed that concern by saying there is no way of knowing how we would have turned out had we not been spanked. I'm okay, even though I was beaten with a belt, but how much better would I have been if I hadn't? I think that is valid to say there is no real way to find that out.

If all you cared about was the OP, then why were you arguing with me? I never said I supported a ban on all spanking. Not once. My entire objection, and has been all along, is that it is not nobody else's business what we do with our kids, because our kids also have protection under the law. My whole point. If the law protects you from being beaten with a belt, then it also protects your child. Because it is currently illegal in most areas to do that, and belt beating was also dealt with in the OP.

[Yupster]

349. When I first moved to texas

from New York City, I couldn't believe these four year olds in restaurants eating hot sauce and chips by the chip-full while I was touching it with my tongue and gulping down a quart of water.

[FreedomAngel82]

186. Yes it fucking is!!

Stay out! Stay out! I want my privacy back now. I'm sick of these rightwingers who are taking everything away! Raise your own fucking kids and stay out of my life! Children do not have seperate rights because they are not adults! They aren't allowed to by cigs or beer are they? No! They're not allowed to join the army are they? No! So stay the FUCK OUT!

[Pithlet]

192. No it fucking isn't.

It isn't a matter of fucking privacy, because another person is fucking involved. People have the right to fucking live without fear of a fucking whooping. That includes kids. Fuckity fuck.

[FreedomAngel82]

197. And you have the right

to stay out of my life. What are you going to do next? Say my parents couldn't send me to my room without supper? Is that abuse too? Stay the fuck out. Raise your own damn kids and leave me a lone!

[Pithlet]

204. I don't want into your life.

I don't know you. I have no interest in butting into your life. I would never tell you how to raise your kids. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, however. We're talking about the fact that children have rights, too. And when a person is whaling on another with a belt, it doesn't matter if that person is their child or their wife.

[FreedomAngel82]

205. That is exactly what you're doing

Talk about a flipflop. One minute you're telling me not to spank kids when I have them and now you're telling me you don't want anything to do with me. Make up your fucking mind. If I'm eighteen years old I'm not an adult yet. I'm still under my parents rule. They are my guardians for a reason. Stay the fuck out and raise your own damn kids. Next you're going to tell me I can't have an abortion and I have to think of the fetus.

[Pithlet]

210. "Flip flop"? Hmmmmm.....

Anyway, by stating the opinion that I don't think people should hit other people for any reason, and that includes kids, I'm intruding into your life? I think you need to reevaluate those boundaries a bit. See, it's called a differing opinion. I know, sometimes that's hard to take. Actually not being sarcastic on that last bit. I'm pretty opinionated at times, I admit.

But, I assure you. I want to intrude in your life in no way. I promise you.

[FreedomAngel82]

217. Here is what you're doing

You're supporting a bill that will intrude in my life hence you're intruding in my life. So why again are you trying to tell me how to raise any future kids? Hmm? Am I telling you how to raise your kids? Stay the fuck out.

[Pithlet]

218. I never said I supported the bill.

Never once. My whole point is you don't get to tell people to stay the fuck out and do whatever the hell you want to your child. If an action is harmful to your child, then society and the law has every right to tell you you can't do it, to protect your child.

If you want to argue that spanking is fine, then fine. While I don't agree with that argument, I can understand it. I don't necessarily want to ban all spanking. But, don't say that it is no one else's business what you do with your kids, because they are entitled to protection from the law the same way you are.

[LeftyMom]

209. Of course children have rights

otherwise we could abuse them willynilly and it would be no different that damaging the sofa or the car or any other posession. They haven't got the full legal rights an adult does, because they generally lack the capacity and judgement to use them properly, but they do have the right to adequate food, medical care, an education and a host of other things outlined by statute or legal precedent.

That it should be legal to hit a child but not an adult or a dog is nonsensical. The adult and and the dog can usually defend themselves, and probably connect the blow to the offense, while a small child generally can not.

This is not a case like abortion where it can be argued that rights are in conflict (I don't think that what we know about human development suppourts fetal rights, but even if it did the rights of a live existing mother would be greater) thie is a case of the clear right to a child to be raised without violence or fear against absolutely nothing. There is no right to hit others in the absence of self defense, there legally recognized right to parent as one sees fit, but it is limited when it comes into conflict with the best interest of the child (for example, you have to provide your kids with an education and adequate nutrition, even if you don't want to.)

[LostinVA]

226. It is a matter of law that children do have separate rights

What started this? A case of horrible child abuse in NYC about 100 years ago. The authorities discovered that although t6heir were some laws protecting the rights of animals, there were none for kids. So they classified the girl as an "animal" and prosecuted the parent. Since then, laws have changed.

Parents can't refuse their children blood transfusions, chemo, etc. if the child is under 18. Parents have to educate/school their children, can;'t abuse them,e tc. I think it's disgusting that parents CAN send their kids to those crazy "boot camps" outside of the US, and to "ex-gay" programs. In my opinion, children in this country do not have ENOUGH separate rights. They are people and US citizens.

Spanking? I think this bill is iffy, but I have this problem with spanking, and it is based on personal empirical evidence: for every five parents that only tap a butt, you have three who beat the shit out of their kids because they are sick fucks, and you have two who are grown men or women who literally don't know how hard they are hitting a little kid.

But, anyone on this thread saying the government has NO RIGHt to intrude in their child's upbringing in ANY way is wrong. It really does take a village, because not everyone is the best parent, whether out of ignorance or malice. And children need to be protected, and often aren't by the people who have legal control over them.

I'm not saying all spanking is bad or if you spank you're evil, or anything like that. I am not responding to posts like that, because all I'm saying here is that children are human, American citizens, and should be protected from true physical and emotional abuse.

[seabeyond]

227. should be protected from true physical and emotional abuse.

we have that law for children, dont we?

[Occulus]

330. "Parents can't refuse their children blood transfusions"

I don't think that's strictly the case; certain religions are exempt as a matter of faith. At least, last I knew they were.

[smartvoter]

124. Talk about overreaching. nt

[mark414]

195. this is stupid

i was spanked and i'm fine

we are turning our children into marshmallow, this is fucking ridiculous

[FreedomAngel82]

200. It's just like the time

earlier in the year when the "news" was talking about teachers not putting a failing grade on a paper with red ink. Good grief! Do you not want your kids to join the military next? They might get spanked there.

[cynatnite]

199. Now the government wants to tell parents how to raise their kids

Give me a effen break :eyes:

Our 14 yr old has been spanked twice which was when she was three and five. Our six year old...only once. They were two or three swats on the butt which we call spanking.

It's scary as hell that if I lived in Mass. and gave my kid a couple of swats on the butt that I'd be thrown in jail for it. Parents may just start being afraid to discipline their kids with something like this hanging over them.

[bdot]

224. yeah, it sucks

1st people complain that kids these days have no respect for anyone and then they ban punishment.
Maybe they'll pass a law that allows people to shoot annoying kids. ;)

[Behind the Aegis]

212. Even more awesome!!!

I say we get a bill on the table to pass a law that forbids parents from yelling at their children, as this causes low self-esteem. Furthermore, we should also add that they cannot use "timeouts" because that will cause the child to become an isolationist, and maybe even lead to anti-social issues. Moreover, it should also be passed that any parent who exposes their child to religion be locked up because that could lead the child to think their religion is superior to others and lead to misanthropic behavior. (Just for those who might not get it, the aforementioned was :sarcasm:!)

[seabeyond]

219. republicans are going to so love this

oh, i bet they are slobbering all over themselves. see how many democrats on this board are turned off and disgusted by this. multiply it tons. every person that has spanked their child will be disgusted

forget telling them to hand over their guns. this is going to do it for the repugs.

good job

i am off to bed

[Indy Lurker]

225. Childern have diminished rights

Children do not have the same rights as adults.

They cannot:

enter a legal contract
Buy alcohol
Purchase porn
roam the streets at night
Claim they are being illegaly detained if they are sent to their room.
claim to have a right to privacy in their room.

The relationship between a parent and their child is NOT the same as the relationship between two adults.

To compare the right of a child to an adult is simply incorrect.

[AzDar]

228. Stay the bloody hell out of my child-rearing decisions...I personally feel

that forcing a child to go to church is "borderline" abuse. I'm sure a lot of folks would disagree with me...as well they SHOULD.
That is their RIGHT as an American.
I have two lovely sons, ages two and eight who've NEVER been spanked; but I reserve the right to do so, if as a parent, I think it necessary. My husband and I are ultimately responsible for our children..it is OUR decision as how to punish, not some politician's(and we all know how MORAL and WISE our politicians are!). The Government which governs best, governs least.

Edited for: punctuating in anger and frustration.

[seabeyond]

229. I reserve the right

yes. i dont spank either and havent thought of it like that, because i just dont feel i will use it. but, yes, i absolutely reserve the right to spank. very good. not only do i stand up for the right of other parents to make this choice, i stand up for my right to use this tool if i deem fit. and if i ever do decide to spank, ....... it is going to be because knowing my children, and knowing the situation, this was the right choice.

hadnt looked at it this way

since participating in this thread last night, and thinking about it thruout the night, and then waking up thinking about this, i am more and more bothered.

then reading the trend of the board this morning, with so many people, i dont know, being extreme. i decided i want a third party now,
leave spanking alone, kids are protect in law from abuse
leave guns alone
leave my nipples alone
leave my body alone
i am the decision maker for kids in school

government is there for basic needs. that is it. roads, school, medical insurance (now because corps have fucked it up)......

[Kosmos Mariner]

230. This is moronic...

This kind of legislative BS is what gives us progressives a bad name nationwide. Spanking is not abuse. A smack on the butt is occasionally necessary. People want their representatives to tackle the big issues. Stuff like this makes us look petty, out of touch, and why some liberal states keep electing Republican governors. They shouldn't have to!! Education, economic prosperity, health care, national DEFENSE, healthy environment, these are the things to push to the forefront and fight like hell for. Hopefully this bill dies a quick death.


:dem:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

231. Well, we sure wouldn't want the Republicans to think ill of us.

[seabeyond]

232. you think it would just be restricted to republicans

you might want to re read this thread and see the reality of how many democrats are pretty disgusted by this too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

235. So? A lot of Democrats supported going to war with Iraq.

A lot still do. Doesn't make it right.

[seabeyond]

237. kinda like the repug theory, the whole world against iraq war

a small portion of the u.s. christian white males and they are right, everyone else is wrong kinda thing

yes, i know

[ProfessorGAC]

234. And Yet, I Would Hesitate To Give Them Any More Ammunition

They've become very good at the "look at the monkey" stuff and if we can give them harmless, but ineffectual ideas that appear to be a waste of gov't time, we are adding to the arsenal. It gives them one more thing to use a distraction and make a point to the middle that Dems are out of touch with the mainstream.

You and i might know that the opposite is true, but someone who wasn't paying attention voted for Bush last year. Right?

I suggest we quit giving them any help in their efforts to marginalize progressive ideas.
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

245. The same could be said for any progressive idea or ideals.

Spanking is battery = The government is trying to take away your parental rights!

Protecting the environment = Tree huggers

The war in Iraq is colonialism = Leftists are in league with terrorists!

Torture is immoral = Leftist don't support our troops.

Universal Health Care = Communism

Gun control = Taking away your guns, tyranny

Abortion Rights = murder of cute little babys

add any other progressive idea or ideal.

Instead of trying to appease the right by approving of their ideals, it's time we started standing up for our own.

One of which should be that violence against other people is wrong - even if it's your own kids.

[ProfessorGAC]

271. Yes, And. . . .?

You're agreeing with me without even knowing it. And i didn't take position on the original topic, so i don't need a lecture on spanking.

My point was fairly clear. Silly ideas distract from the real ideals of governance. Even if you or i agree with them (in this case, i'm not sure this is the best use of governmental attention despite the noble intentions), this type of intrusive, nanny-state initiative helps the radical right marginalize the overall progressive ideals.

You want to stand up for ideals. That's well and good! But, i am loathe to give them any more minutia on which to distract from the real fight.
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

285. I don't consider preventing child abuse a "silly" idea.

Nor, do I think government intervention is indicative of a "nanny" state or "minutiae".

Saving some minnow in some obsure area of the country is open to riducule by the rightwing. Or, here in the Pacific Northwest, the Spotted Owl. So? We should give up on such things because the likes of Rush Moneybags is going to ridicule them?

Violence in this country is a problem. Child abuse is a major part of that problem. It needs to be addresed even if the rightwingers don't like it.

[ProfessorGAC]

287. I See The Forest. You See The Tree

'Nuff Said. BTW: I never said preventing child abuse was a silly idea. You've resorted to putting words in my mouth to obfuscate that your point is too weak to stand alone.

Ciao!
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

308. Uhhh...spanking is Child Abuse. It's assault and battery.

assault and battery

NOUN:

An assault upon a victim that is carried out by striking the victim, knocking the victim down, or otherwise doing violence to the victim.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/assault+and+battery



So, tell me again, who's obfuscating?

[ProfessorGAC]

358. Answer: You

That's got nothing to do with the subject. You changed the topic twice because your point was so tenuous. I don't know if you're being obstinate or just not getting my point. Either way, it's gotten too tedious to bother any further.
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

233. Good. One of the civilized states takes care of it's own.

I hope that more states follow suit.

[radwriter0555]

238. I couldn't agree more. Sweden was the first nation to ban spanking and

they're at the forefront of the planet's socialist movements.

Apparently some half dozen nations also protect their children properly.

I can't expect the US to follow suit.

[radwriter0555]

239. Nations that Ban Spanking (corporal punishment) include Sweden, Finland,

Denmark, NOrway, Austria, Cypress, Croatia, and Latvia.

"...Nations considering a ban on corporal punishment include Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium, and the Republic of Ireland. Much of this is now driven by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is pressuring countries to ban corporal punishment or face censure and public criticism. Anti-spanking activists claim that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires a ban on all physical punishment..."

http://www.christianpost.com/php_functions/print_friendly.php?tbl_name=editorial&id=171

Also interesting to note that Austria is the first nation to ban vanity dog mutilation as well, HURRAY!

[bicentennial_baby]

242. I love living in MA!

Children should have the right to not be assaulted by anyone!

[Deep13]

249. MA is great, but...

... giving a toddler a swift pat on the ass is not assault, any more than cuffing and stuffing a criminal suspect is. Implicite in the definition of assault is a lack of privilege to use force.

[bicentennial_baby]

250. In your opinion

I don't believe in using violence to discipline children, 'k? We can agree to disagree.

[seabeyond]

253. are you going to take the kids away

from the parents. because of your belief. that you agree to disagree on.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

244. Stay the Fuck Out, State

There are already laws against child abuse. This is intrusive and ridiculous. What next, banning speaking to your child in a loud voice for fear it might constitute "emotional abuse"? How about grabbing your child by the arm? Would that constitute "pinching"? And what constitutes spanking? Light swats? Who draws the line?

I received a handful of light spankings when I was young, all well deserved, and I had a fantastic relationship with both of my parents. The notion that the state would dare to propose sending them to jail for it really burns me up.

There are all kinds of interpretation and slippery slope problems with this bill. I hope the travesty gets voted down.

DTH

[Tim4319]

246. I could not agree with you more!

Timeouts do not work with all children. I was spanked as a young one (All of which were well deserved), and I am still alive, I am a model citizen, I never had thoughts of hitting others.

I too believe the government should stay out of how we raise our kids. Although, as long as it does not get out of hand, spanking children, when they deserve it, is not all bad.

[bobaloo2]

247. Great idea

Yeah, let's make this a national issue, and in the same bill we could call for confiscation of all firearms and banning all public prayer.

Ewww, that's make us popular for sure.

And people wonder why liberal has become a dirty word.

[redqueen]

251. This is great!

It's about fucking time!

:applause:

I don't see why people think spanking helps in any way, shape or form... even dog training classes tell owners never to use punishment for training, because it's an unreliable method with undesirable side effects... why people don't get a clue about hitting their children is WAY beyond me.

Thanks for sharing the good news. :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

257. "You should only spank your kids until YOU feel better."

That was from a pysch prof in a class I took when asked by a clueless mom who didn't get what he was saying.

Parents don't "spank" (a euphemism for battery) their kids to discipline them, they assault them because they can release their anger, frustration, rage. But, that's kinda hard to admit for most parents who cling to the idiotic notion that they're doing it for the kid's sake.

[redqueen]

258. It's sad to see so many still clinging to that ...

but I can't argue that that's not exactly what's going on. :(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

270. As a counselor, I got the same rationale from serious abusers.

One woman made her 14 year old son rewash the dishes for the family because he didn't do it adequately the first time. He had to stand at the sink with his pants down while she beat him continuously with a belt. This in front of the whole family.

"I was just teaching him how to wash dishes 'properly'." The judge didn't agree.

My own stepfather used to beat me with a belt or a board or his fists for the smallest infraction. It was always for my "own good". I bailed out when I turned 15.

I guess human beings can justify damn near anything. As in, "We were 'softening up' the prisoners at Abu-Ghraib."

[Yupster]

351. Just from my own and my wife's experience

that notion is just wildly wrong.

The few spankings we gave our kid were long talked over, researched, even strategized upon before they were decided upon.

There was nothing like anger or rage involved.

Sounds like this professor doesn't think parents care much about their kids.

The parents I know read up on everything they can find and try many different ways t solve problems. They don't go chasing their kids around with sticks to satisfy their blood lust.

The more I think of it, that's kind of a sick professor. Maybe he was just being bombastic to get a rise out of a huge class or something.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

356. So with all your research you couldn't come up with an alternative?

Just what research and strategizing did you do? What research led you to choose violence against your kids? What problems did it solve?

[soleft]

254. parents spanking = cops beating Rodney King

Or any other authority figure with absolute power using pain and fear to elicit desired behavior from a weaker or helpless person.

Only with parents its worse because kids love their parents.

I implore parents with small children to read any of the hundreds of books that teach how to discpline without physical punishment.

[tx_dem41]

260. We've sure expended a lot of energy talking about a bill that has...

about 0.1% chance of getting passed.

[seabeyond]

263. the voice of reason, just looked at the poll, here are the results

a bill to make spanking illegal

Choice Votes Percentage of 9073 Votes
I approve of this. 635 7%
I disapprove 8125 90%
I'm not sure 313 3%


i didnt have the clue how likely it had of passing. this is good to know.

after all, we just had a no gay foster parent law pass in texas and a governor sign in anti gay bill from a church. i dont know what is going to pass now a days

[tx_dem41]

264. Yep, our state of Texas...

is becoming more of a Repub nightmare everyday. :(

But today, I've been introduced to a new concept: A Democratic nightmare, or possibly its just a DU nightmare (I hope).

[seabeyond]

268. i hear ya

would make it damn near impossible me trying to convince those around me not to vote repug if this were to get out. might as well give it up

[RetroLounge]

261. Bullshit. It is government interference in parenting.

"Supporters said it's all about preventing abuse, not prosecuting parents"

Bullshit, it's about control.

and before you holier-than-thou's start your ususal crap, nowhere did I say I approve or disapprove of spanking.

RL

[bloom]

276. Control

Yes - laws against hitting others is about control.

As are laws against murder, rape, robbery and other offenses.

I would like to see laws enforced against Bush & Co.

And that is about control also. Because they are out of control and hurting the world.



Reducing violence and improving civility. That is what laws should be for.

[RetroLounge]

283. No one mentioned hitting, it's about spanking.

But go ahead and spin...

RL

[bloom]

286. Spank - definition

spank

verb {T}
1 to hit a child with the hand, usually several times on the bottom as a punishment

2 to hit an adult on the bottom in order to get or give sexual pleasure


spanking

noun {C or U} (ALSO spank)

- He needs a good spanking.

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/spank

----

Also referred to as "slapping" in another definition - same thing.

[bloom]

291. Hit - definition

verb
To deliver a powerful blow to suddenly and sharply: bash, catch, clout, knock, pop1, slam,slog, slug3, smash, smite, sock, strike, swat, thwack, whack, wham, whop.

Informal biff,bop, clip1, wallop. Slang belt, conk, paste. Idioms: let someone have it, sock it to someone. See attack/defend, strike/miss.

To enter a person's mind: occur, strike. Idioms: cross one's mind. See happen.

To come upon, especially suddenly or unexpectedly: catch, hit on (or upon), surprise, take.See surprise/expect.


phrasal verb - hit back
To return like for like, especially to return an unfriendly or hostile action with a similar one: counter, reciprocate, retaliate, retort, strike back,, attack/defend,forgiveness/vindictiveness.


noun
A sudden sharp, powerful stroke: bang, blow2, clout, crack, lick, pound, slug3, sock, swat,thwack, welt, whack, wham, whop. Informal bash, biff, bop, clip1, wallop. Slang belt,conk, paste. See attack/defend, strike/miss.

A dazzling, often sudden instance of success: sleeper. Informal smash, smash hit,ten-strike, wow. Slang boff, boffo, boffola. See thrive/fail/exist.

An inhalation, as of a cigar, pipe, or cigarette: drag, draw, puff, pull. See breath/breathlessness.

The crime of murdering someone: blood, homicide, killing, murder. See help/harm/harmless.


http://www.answers.com/topic/hit

[paineinthearse]

265. 3rd nomination, thanks

I live in Mass but have busy with Conyers developments and this was not on my radar screen.

I know a couple weeks ago, the town of Brookline narrowly approved a similar measure. See the Mass forum for post/discussion.

Way to go!

[nashville_brook]

266. this is fascinating... i've been researching dobson's spanking issues

here's some quotes:

Dobson advocates the spanking of children from 15-18 months to eight years old. According to Dobson, "pain is a marvelous purifier." (Dare to Discipline, p.6) He argues that "it is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." (Ibid., p.7.)

In The Strong-Willed Child (p.73), Dobson writes: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted." As for the magnitude of the spanking, he argues that "two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must obey me.'" (The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.)

Dobson directly connects parental authority to social authority: "By learning to yield to the loving authority...of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers." (The Strong-Willed Child, p. 235.)

He frequently portrays the child as the natural enemy of the parent and emphasizes that it is necessary to punish the child to uphold parental authority. "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." (Dare to Discipline, p. 36.)

In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws a strong analogy between child rearing and dog rearing. He tells a story in which the family dog refuses to leave his resting place on the lid of the toilet seat. According to Dobson, a "vicious fight" between him and the dog resulted in which he "fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt ." He concludes that "just as surely as a dog will occasionally challenge the authority of his leaders, so will a little child--only more so." (emphasis Dobson)

To deal with crying, Dobson recommends: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears." <2>

[seabeyond]

269. i am going to the pool with two fundie friends

both have said dobson a loving man. lol. this is just perfect to hand to them, as we leave. some things happened with dobson, and they couldnt understand why i was outraged.

[nashville_brook]

296. PLEASE reply or PM me on the outcome if you talk about this.

i'm working on a column on this subject and am very interested. good luck and have fun! :)

[gordianot]

272. Utterly incredible.

I had not seen where he compared dog behavior to human behavior. I take it that is his answer for potty training?

Dogs do challenge the leader (in this case a human) but they are the dominance rules left over from the wolf pack. Humans are hard wired by a different set of rules trial and success due to their dependence on cognitive functioning. I don't think I would even trust him to train my dog.

[nashville_brook]

295. as a canine lover/trainer... the comparison is fair if/only if

you compare on the basis of their cognitive skills and are therefore arguing for being gentle.

the worst mistake people make in housetraining is getting angry and rubbing Astro's nose in the wet spot he left on the carpet. THEY CAN'T CONNECT THE TWO. all they know is you are abusing them, thereby RUINING your chances of teaching them anything at all.

they ARE pack animals -- BUT not all dogs have a dominace drive nor do the they "CHALLENGE" humans. their adaptive strategy is to serve humans so that you give them food and shelter. their FOOD DRIVE is by far their strongest instinct. that's why we use food in training. they'll do anything for food. i've taught my dogs to "read" flash cards, dance, have nice manners, and lower the volume of their play barks.

the story Dobson retells is about DOBSON wanting to use the toilet and the DOG liked to sleep on top of the fluffy cover lid. instead of calling him down, using a trained command such as "SIT" he engaged the animal in a physical "fight."

this, from someone who claims to know how to train children. i'll also add, it's very telling that the dog chooses to recluse in the WC. as a pack animal the dog SHOULD seek companionship with the family -- resting at their feet or on the couch as in our household. dogs only SEEK solitude for security.

[seabeyond]

302. wow, your smart

wink

[gordianot]

311. Dobson must have made this story up.

I doubt there is even a fundie that is this stupid.

[seabeyond]

313. i gave this to one of fundie friends to read

she says sounds like my x. how my x believes. i was just thinking that having had kids in a fundie school i really didnt see this attitude, certainly not in the moms, but on thought, i remembered what friends said about x and i know it is true with him. then going thru brain, more and more fathers in that school, i could see it.

so i am going to say, maybe it isnt so far off, though certainly not as a whole. i also know many fathers in the school that i cant see with that attitude.

on edit: my firend ended with i am afraid he has taught louis to be this type of father.

[gordianot]

316. I work with Severely Disabled Children.

Schools make this mistake all of the time. Negative consequences (not just corporal punishment)work quickly but do not translate well into a long term behavior change.

Positive reinforcement takes more time but results in a long term behavior change.

It is easy to forget some people really believe that forcing a behavior change is effective. Guess they are modeling after Government policies.

[Yupster]

352. Funny story

I can picture a dog on a furry toilet cover defending his spot with a sword while a guy is holding his legs together trying not to pee in his pants.

[bloom]

277. The Moral Majority - Rev. Greg Dixon - is even worse.

"Indiana Moral Majority spokesperson Rev. Greg Dixon says that welts and bruises on children are a sign that a parent is doing a good job on discipline."

http://216.220.97.17/corporal.htm


And some people are worried about what Republicans think! :eyes:

[ecstatic]

273. I don't agree. This is intrusive... and RW - like

Let families decide how to raise their own kids! I'm shocked that some of you would support this! You don't want Repubs telling you what you can do in your own bedroom, but yet, you want the government telling you how to raise your kids?

[bloom]

279. The RW is for the opposite

They encourage corporal punishment. See posts #266 & #277.

[Mizmoon]

274. Define "spanking"

There's the problem right there ...

[bloom]

281. I think...

meaningless swats - are meaningless - so if they are meaningless they serve no purpose.

and swats that hurt are not good.

so there doesn't seem to be a good reason for any of it.

[Yupster]

353. In my experience,

it's the noise more than the pain that's important.

[yodermon]

280. Oh joy, another spanking thread.

Nothing like the subject of spanking to bring out the a lot of repressed pain on DU. The flame-fests and freeperish responses that inevitably ensue are evidence, IMHO, that spanking is a Bad Thing. The very subject brings out the worst in DUers. Why is this? Here's what I think:

1) Spankers were themselves spanked. (If you were Never (and I mean never ever) spanked, yet you do in fact spank your own children, please reply. I do not believe that you exist. I could be wrong.)

2) Talking about spanking triggers the memories of pain, fear, and shame that these spankers had to endure.

3) Pain fear and shame, when in control of a person, do not provide for calm rational discourse. Especially when the discourse must inherently involve some level of self-evaluation, and re-processing of the trauma that was experienced.

At the very least, spanking ensures that the child learns that it's fine and dandy to use force on those that are weaker than you to enforce your will upon them; and afterward to use the threat of revisiting this shock & awe on them in order to coerce some desired behavior.

Having said that, I believe that it would be hypocritical in the extreme to actually PUNISH any caregiver that was found guilty of spanking (as stated in the article). Counseling, yes; any sort of fine/jail/probation: no. And, I don't know how such a law could be enforced.

EVERYONE, please read "plain talk about spanking" at http://nospank.net/plntk.htm

Also, check out "The Political Consequences of Child Abuse" by Alice Miller at http://psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html (Also any article on psychohistory.com is great)

Lastly: http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/modesw.htm has a summary of the evolution of childrearing modalities ("psychoclasses") throughout human history. Spanking is a feature of the Intrusive mode. The highest mode is known as "Helping" mode. Here is an excerpt describing most recent 3 modes:

4. Intrusive Mode (beginning with the late 16th century):

The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the infant and to bring up the child themselves rather than sending them elsewhere in order to allow closer emotional bonds to form. This increasing freedom and individuation _ separate beds for children even became common _ meant that new means of control had to be invented. Since infants were now allowed to crawl around free rather than being swaddled and hung on a peg behind the stove, they had to be formally "disciplined" to control the feelings injected into them, and so were prayed with, threatened with hell, punished for touching themselves and in general turned into the guilty Puritan child so familiar from early modern childrearing literature. Nevertheless, because intrapsychic problems of the intrusive psychoclass were beginning to be worked out internally rather than projected onto the external world, reality could be manipulated far more effectively, producing the explosive modern takeoff in scientific advance, technological progress and economic activity.

5. Socializing Mode (beginning late 18th century):

As parental injections continued to diminish, the rearing of the child became less a process of conquering its will than of training it, guiding it into proper paths, teaching it to conform to the parents' goals, socializing it. Hellfire and physical discipline disappeared and were replaced by more gentle methods of guidance. The socializing mode is still the main model of upbringing in the West, emphasizing the use of psychological rather than physical discipline, the mother as the perfect parent to both spouse and child and the father as reliable provider and protector rather than as being bonded mainly to other men. The socializing psychoclass built the modern world, and their values of nationalism and economic class warfare represent the goals of most people today.

6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-20th century):

The helping parent tries to assist the child in reaching its own goals at each stage of life, rather than socializing it into adult goals. Instead of the emphasis being on forming "habits that are useful later in life," the child is empowered to explore its own capacities as it grows. Both parents are involved in relating to and empathizing with the child in order to help it fulfill its expanding and particular needs. The child is made to feel unconditionally loved, and its personal integrity, physical space and sexuality are inviolate to adult intrusion. The first few young adults who have had helping mode childrearing whom I know are more empathic and less driven by material success than earlier generations were at their age. Nationalism, war and wide disparities in economic conditions seem to be tolerated less well by this helping psychoclass.

[foo_bar]

282. neo-Freudian exegesis isn't science

Ever since Freud pointed out the anal origins of money... http://psychohistory.com/htm/money.html

B<ush>: control. . .haunting. . children erode.. points of light...
D<ukakis>: cut lashed ut... slashed.. children... youngsters...

Interpretation: Because Kids Want Incest And Rape We Must Slash And Butcher Them And Their Mothers http://psychohistory.com/htm/money.html

This deMause fellow stole the term "psychohistory" from Isaac Asimov, but rededicates Asimov's work to Big Daddy Sigmund in an L. Ron Hubbard-esque schism:

Emergence as a Discipline
Sigmund Freud is probably most qualified to be described as the inventor of the field as his works, such as Civilization and Its Discontents, often included historical analysis supported by his theories of psychoanalysis. The actual term "psychohistory" was coined by Isaac Asimov as the name for a fictional science in his Foundation Trilogy universe.

[donheld]

289. It this bill passes we wont be able to spank WillPitt

:spank::evilfrown::spank:

[boohootwo]

292. How is spanking different from assalt?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

306. It's Assault and Battery

Assault

NOUN:

1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

assault and battery

NOUN:

An assault upon a victim that is carried out by striking the victim, knocking the victim down, or otherwise doing violence to the victim.

[boohootwo]

354. Then spanking is assault. Or would be if done to adults.

[AngryAmish]

293. Will Mass. also pay for naughty steps in every home?

[DireStrike]

294. I think this is stupid.

This is a very old question that provokes strong feelings on both sides. I am not aware of it being conclusively proven that spanking is not a good way to discipline children (In ANY case, as an outright ban would suggest.)

I consider myself pretty well informed, and I haven't been convinced. The general public DEFINITELY has not been convinced, if I haven't. It doesn't make sense politically and there has not been enough recent dialogue for people to agree whether it makes sense morally.

If the intent of introducing the bill is to spark debate, then fine. I can't agree with passing the bill yet. This really comes out of left field for the vast majority of Americans. You don't tell people how to raise their kids, spanking included. Go ahead and talk about torture or whatever, but you'll be wielding a semantics argument against people with deep-held convictions, a sure recipe for loss. Americans don't see spanking as torture, abuse, assault, anything like that. Maybe after more discussion that will change, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

[Ian David]

304. Two questions

1) Does it ban spanking and such between consenting adults?

2) Does it make it illegal to expose children to second-hand cigarette smoke.

[Ian David]

307. Check out the photo that appears next to the story

Mr. Greenspan says you've been very, very bad...

[Ian David]

309. OK, so the law only applies to kids under 18. Here's what to do then

1) Start making a list of all the times you feel your kid deserves to be physically punished. Carefully note the offense and what you feel to be the appropriate physical response.

2) Each year, review that list with your kid on their birthday.

3) On your kid's 18th birthday, wake them up early in the morning, and show them the list.

4) If you wake them up early enough, and if they're caught off-guard, you may have the advantage of surprise.


...and when you were six, I told you not to watch TV until you cleaned your room...

[Joj Bush]

312. No thread on DU has upset me more than this

And I've read this site for years. I was hesitant to reply to this thread and bring it back to the top of the forum, because it would ever so slightly increase the chance of this bill getting major publicity. I hate to see MA, where I live, become a laughing stock. And it would rightfully be a laughing stock if this bill somehow passed. The thread does not upset me because of the news it brings. One wacko lawmaker is simply that. It's the reaction on this board, with about half thinking the bill is horrible and half thinking it's great. To those of you who think it's great, you are dead wrong. Even if you were not dead wrong, news of this bill will make Massachusetts and liberals, with whom MA is associated, look like extremists and fascists to a large majority of those of hear it. Even if you think the world would be better off with spanking banned, please do not support this bill simply because it will not pass and will just make MA look ridiculous.

Those who compare this bill to gay marriage and abortion and exactly right. Some believe gay marriage is a sin, while some do not. Since the answer is not definitive, it wrong to disallow those who believe it is not a sin to do it. Since the answer to whether abortion is murder is not definitive, it wrong to disallow it.

Spanked children do not necessarily grow up to spank their children, and I have not seen any evidence provided by the posters claiming that they do. Some of these posters seem to think that that alone is sufficient proof that spanking is abuse. The definition of abuse is not "something you are more likely to do to your children if it is done to you." I bet kids whose parents cooked burgers for them are more likely to cook burgers for their children, that must be abuse too.

If you have your typical 200-pound American elementary-schooler, withholding that third Big Mac might cause the physical pain of hunger, that fits the "hurting" definition of abuse that is being presented here.

I was spanked, and I do not feel that it hurt me, although some of you who were not spanked seem to be arrogant enough to think you know better than we do. Children who were abused and have grown up generally know they were abused, assuming no repressed memories, and will use the term "abuse" for it. I was not abused. In some cases I deserved and probably would've benefited in the long run from more than just the spanking I got.

If you were not spanked and turned out ok, good for you. I don't intend to spank my children. I, however, do not support fascism. That's the Republicans' job.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

326. Great Post

Some of the responses to this thread are mind-boggling. Anyone who thinks a couple of light swats on the butt are somehow going to harm a child's development is fucking crazy in my book.

DTH

[Name removed]

325. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillowTree]

336. Why not...

....just take all children away from their parents at birth and put them in state-approved Child Rearing Centers and be done with it?

Sheesh, what a travesty!

[seabeyond]

338. have you seen the movie logans run, lol ol

i watched it for the first time about 6 months ago. a really old movie. yup

[Fountain79]

341. This is action conservatives just love........

To the people who are supporting this measure...I understand your reasoning behind it. However this is truly a step into madness. I am a teacher, I have seen the effects of children who come from lack of discipline.(In case you are wondering, I have also seen the effects of abuse)

And in case anyone was curious verbal abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse. Should we move to outlaw "chew outs" or lectures in an effort to curb verbal abuse?

[iconoclastNYC]

344. NO NANNY STATE

omg this is horrible for the left.

parenting is sacred to most people. the government shouldn't weigh in on this debate. i'm sorry, this issue is kryptonite.

[seabeyond]

346. but some of the anti spankers dont care. they arent listening

they have a battle to wage. it is like the women i know voting for bush because of abortion. i would tell them the zillion reason not to and they would agree, but that one damn issue had them voting for bush, totally agains their best interest.

they dont realize how the dems will not be elected cause of this issue of theirs. screw the country for all the many reasons we need bush out, get this anti spanking butting into peoples business past at all cost without any realistic means of implementing such a stupid law. we know it isnt abuse. we know what a spanking is. we have had spankings. we cannot be convicned we are abusing. it wont be accepted

and i dont spank my kids, to clarify

[iconoclastNYC]

350. hopefully this is swatted down by the democratic leadership

this is insanity. this is going to be all over talk radio.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

357. Seems like a lot of "progressives" here favor violence as a solution.

[bloom]

361. I think it's sort of funny

how many people say "I don't spank - I just support the right of my neighbors, friends, the Republicans... to spank".


Spanking totally fits the "Strict Father Model" of the Republicans. It does not fit with the Nurturing Parent Model of Liberals.

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

There seems to be a lot of issues discussed on the board recently where the Freedom of People to be violent or dishonest or be jerks or something (as long as the gov't isn't stepping on their toes) is valued over Thinking About What Is Best For the Children.

Seems like a lot of Libertarian influence. Some will even admit that. But if it is - I also wonder if the Libertarians favor the "Strict Father Model" as well. (I know my Libertarian/Republican brother does).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

362. Yes. Since when has assault & battery become a "progressive" ideal?

Oh, yeah. As long as it's not on people, just women & kids. I'm amazed that supposedly intelligent, capable, beings, who trumpet "progressive" "liberal" ideals are unable to find solutions to child rearing other than battery.

Also, they don't see the irony of statements like, "My dad spanked me and I turned out just fine. And, I spank my kids."

[formernaderite]

359. This is going to cause a cultural divide....

I've argued against spanking till I'm blue with some of the guys I work with...the black and hispanic guys always tell me it's a black thing or a hispanic thing.