BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM

No-spank bill on way
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

What do you think?

1. Spank or no-spank?
2. Who gets to decide?

IMO the first one's easy.... then it gets more than a little complicated.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:24 PM

This doesn't pertain to consenting adults though, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM

Not on their birthdays I hope!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

According to Tommy James, his baby does the Hanky Spanky.

I wonder if Ms McFarlane has an opinion on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Alec
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

Note in ads at bottom of this thread one is for sheet music & the other is for Church music training. Just thought I'd mention it: )

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

BTW, I agree with the proposed bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: pdq
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

We need a bill that allows irate parents to smack worthless politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM

No spanking under 18, I say.

Seriously, it's entirely possible to raise a child without hitting them anywhere. I was never hit, and while no saint, I've never stolen, plundered, pillaged, cheated on my taxes, assaulted anyone or otherwise was lawless. I also worked with kids for many years, and besides that we weren't legally permitted to hit them, none of us would have ever considered doing so, and we were still able to maintain discipline.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:33 PM

Okay... here we go.... everyone knows everyone elses child.

Think this lad should have been spanked?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM

At the ages of one, tow or three, would he have understood? And, maybe that's the RESULT of spanking, Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM

Bullshit. No child of any age should be spanked if it is not necessary. HOWEVER, any child of any age should be spanked if necessary. And, why should you decide if someone elses child needs a spanking or not?

Are we suppose to let our children kill before they finally get spanked? That's what it boils down to.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:52 PM

In one of my Jr Hi classes, the instructor was a sort of "old-fart" (by Jr. Hi/Middle school standards) who believed that "responsibility" in a work environment was part of what he needed to teach. (shop classes)

"Spats" were a regular part of the routine, subject to rather strict standards.

The student was given the option of accepting a specified number of "spats," OR of being required to "stay after" in the punishment study hall.

The spats were administered in class, with the entire class present.

The recipient was required to autograph the "spat board" at completion of the punishment.

Abuse of the recipient, or in fact any future reference once the student faced up and took the "punishment" - or bragging about how much (or little) it hurt, was also a "spattable offense."

1. Misbehaviour acknowledged.
2. Punishment chosen by the student, with realistic options available.
3. Punishment administered and accepted in the presence of all peers.

4. CASE CLOSED.

[point 4 is the most important, IMO]

No student EVER chose any punishment that was offered other than "take it and be done with it."

No one ever had a real problem returning to his (an all male class at that time) seat and resuming the class.

This teacher was highly respected, with, in most cases, as much "affection" as Middle School students can muster. Class discipline contributed to an unusually favorable learning environment. Unlike other similar classes, in the presence of mildly hazardous machines and materials, his class had NO INJURIES during, so far as I know, his entire tenure at the school.

What he did probably was "illegal" even then, but you'd have had a very difficult time finding one of his students who would support any complaint about him.

A Kansas legislator is attempting to introduce a bill to permit corporal punishment in the schools. If I could expect Mr. S's standards, I might support it; but I'm afraid the legislator hasn't had my advantage and experience, and likely will f**** it up, so I'm reserving an opinion. (It's unlikely his bill wil be seriously considered.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:24 PM

I never had to whack my kids because they believed I would if they pushed me too far.
The thing is, kids don't think like we do, and the only thing they learn from being spanked is that big people get to hit little people. It is a known fact that boys who were sexually abused grow up to be abusers too. Charles Manson is one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:31 PM

Corporal punishment is permitted in the state of Pennsylvania in the schools. If you do not agree that your child be subjected to this, you have to send in a written note.

Having worked in 2 of the local schools recently, I can tell you that not one teacher would THINK about putting their hands on a student for punishment purposes.

Having many years of experience as a social worker, I can tell you that spanking (NOT BEATING)is permitted but not to any kind of extreme (in Pennsylvania). If there is a visible mark, the parent has a problem.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:40 PM

For years when we allowed beating is schools in the UK we had to record the beatings. It was realised then - that it was the same kids time after time. That's when they stopped it.

Spanking should be used as a last resort. Everyone agrees on that. So if everything else has failed so far - what makes you think spanking works?

The only people legally allowed to spank people are prostitutes and children.

Nice company you keep.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM

My brother and I got spanked twice. After that, my mother realized it didn't work at all because we just got angry that we'd been spanked and beat each other up. Probably the world's most concise example of violence begetting violence.

Of course, my parents actually paid attention to us and listened to us, so we were very rarely behavior problems in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM

I'm glad you all live in bucolic places. In many school districts today, there are children being raised by incompetent parents, who send wildly defiant kids to school where no one is allowed to touch them. The endgame in some of these schools is nobody learns anything and the teachers are subject to assault. The problem kids have no respect for authority and no fear of anything, because they know teacher and administrator hands are tied, the only effective 'punishment' they may dole out is suspension, which to a child = get out of school free day. When they return after their vacation, they again render the classrooms zoos where the kids who are willing to learn can't. There are worse things than a child getting spanked, there is raising criminals unchecked.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:40 PM

As if spanking in school would accomplish anything beyond giving said lax and inattentive parents an excuse to sue the school system and play the martyrs.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: skipy
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:42 PM

Peace, I was never tow!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: skipy
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM

I was never "spanked" as far as I can remember, I was beaten & kicked, I was beaten with a leather razor strop (many times), I was hit with pieces of wood, I was hit with a bottle, I was punched, I was whipped with a leather belt with a brass buckle, and NO this is not my sence of humour, this is sad fact!
However, I decided as a father that the circle would be broken, my two have not been "spanked" or in any way treated as I was.
My father did to me what had been done to him etc.
Unwittingly he gave to me my motivation to leave home at 15 & join the Royal Air Force, I just had to get out of there, so I did.
Sadly a friend I was to meet in later life who served 22 years with the Fleet Air Arm (and who works with me to this day) has the same story to tell, and guess what, he has not hit his boys either.
If I had to resort to hitting them then I will feel that I have failed.
Skipy (still bitter).
However you are what you drink & I am a bitter man! (humour)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:30 PM

Giving proper credit to Monty Python:

Spanking? Sure. Every Thursday night at my place!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:41 PM

No one should ever hit anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM

Speaking historically, every method of child rearing works about as well as any other. Being given 'licks' in junior high school made an outsider more acceptable to the main run of students. I know this to be true because it was how I became accepted. (Only that one time, though) Skipy and I have much in common save that I believe my mother enjoyed making me bleed. The only effect it had on me that I'm aware of is that I came to hate her. Even then, when I was 15 and got a chance to kill her, I passed it up. Still not sure why. So. Spanking may be necessary from time to time to get a child's attention. Historically, there's much to be said for it. Violence for it's own sake is sick. Note. I have no children. But then I never liked the little buggers anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:25 AM

"Are we suppose to let our children kill before they finally get spanked? That's what it boils down to"

The law is intended to protect children under three years old. Ain't too many of them committing murder, Gnu. Don't you see sometjhing just plain wrong with hitting an infant?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:11 AM

Politician, give 'em an inch and they'll be telling you how to raise your kids. The problems are similar to gun control.

Responsible people seek to obey the laws. Gun laws are ostensibly made to control criminal and potential criminal behavior. People who own guns for target, sport or personal protection are not out doing drive-bys or taking down banks and liquor stores. Many gun laws infringe upon the honest citizens' ability to pursue the aforementioned, honest endeavors. The criminal, by definition, doesn't give a damn about the law and isn't going to obey any law that stands between him and what he wants. Do you think the Columbine killers were checking to make sure their clips only held ten rounds each?

The people who are beating the Hell out of their kids aren't going to pay any attention to anti-spnking laws in CA. First of all, they aren't discipling the kid. They are hitting the child because they are inconveienced or annoyed or drunk or worse. They are already criminals or people who are in some way impaired. What they are doing only remotely resembles discipline to a moronic legislator who doesn't have children and has no idea of what it is like to raise a child. She's kinda like the Pope giving marital advice.

Parents who LOVE their children find a way that works best. It may or may not involove spanking or corporeal punishment. Each child is different. Some kids, a good swat on the bottom is about the only way to get their attention. I was one of those kids and even at that it barely phased me. The spanking was just part of the calculated risk of whatever mischief I was into at the time. With some kids (like my own ) just a stern look or a snap of the fingers is enough to command attention.

In CA a child under the age of 5 is not considered a credible witness in any legal proceeding and such a law would probably be unenforcable. Also I am sure that our judicial system which is already stretched to the max would just love to have a whole new category of complaints with which to deal. This legislator needs to find a hobby like beekeeping or something else that is constructive and keep her BIG nose out of private people's families.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:30 AM

Peace... "...hitting an infant?"

??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:54 AM

My parents smacked (Not quite sure what is meant by 'spanking') me possibly four or five times in my whole childhood. Each incident stands out in my memory and were mostly a result of me pushing to the limit to see how far I could go. They finally smacked me as being the last resort, and then I knew what the limits were. I believe this is good for children. A smack constituted one open hand blow (really more of a tap) to either my hand ( as in the case of me ignoring what I'd been told and messing about with a little paraffin heater) the others to the fleshy part of my thigh or my bottom. I was aware at the time that my parents did this only because I had pushed too far. It didn't make me believe that hitting was ok generally, or make me hit anyone else.

I have smacked both my kids in the same sort of circumstances, though I can't remember the last time...must be years ago. I think my children are lovely, well-balanced and mainly well-behaved people. Neither of them has EVER been accused of bullying, getting into fights or gratuitously hitting anyone else.

I also find it deeply offensive that anyone should try to tell me whether or not I may smack my children. However, there is a world of difference between smacking and beating and between smacking once with an open hand and puching with a fist or hitting with any weapon. No-one should do those to anyone and particularly not to children.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

Lynn, those children are not your PROPERTY. Now, I didn't infer that you think you have the right to do whatever you wish to them, but too many parents think just that way. If a smack on the butt with an open hand that doesn't cause permanent damage will keep a kid from death or other real danger, ok. A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop.

Here in Maine, the city of Bangor just passed a law that forbids anyone to smoke in their own car if children under 18 are present. There is sure to be an outcry..."They are my kids, and I'll do as I please in MY car"!!
People who smoke in the same room with small children should be educated about the kid's rights as well as their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM

The big problem, as I've seen it, is when an unruly child knows that spanking isn't permitted. They will push and push and push, knowing that the 'ultimate deterrent' isn't available...

I never needed to spank my children, though they were always led to believe that I might if pushed too hard...

Violence begets violence, and I'm not suggesting that all children respond or react in the same way. That just isn't so.

It's a difficult issue with no 'right answer'. Some parents are irresponsible, so for them having the spanking option is like giving a loaded gun to a five-year-old child. A responsible parent knows how far they need to go without having their bluff called.

It's called 'respect'... and it has to be earned, not demanded.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Megan L
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

PS anyone can take that any way they want :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

With children as with dogs, if caught in the act, a smack is appropriate. Always explain why, never smack for no reason, never do the 'You wait till your Father gets home' trick as that lends fear and apprehension to what should be instant retribution.
Smacking should never be too hard and it should never be done because you are in a bad mood, it's not the child's fault you can't keep your temper under control.
Most importantly, both parents in a 2 parent household should keep the same rules, and any request from a child should always be answered by the question, 'Have you asked your Mother/Father' It is no good one parent saying different to the other, letting a child play one parent off against the other is a recipe for a badly behaved child.
Consistency is good for kids!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

Now, if we could just make them stop feeding junk food at McDonald's...

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

I smacked both of my sons (smacked, not beat-up, and only when all else failed).
One studied hard at school, got good grades, loves and respects his mum and me, has a lovely partner, got a good well-paid job and is now the manager of a fairly large store in a very swish area in Yorks.
The other one pratted around at school, flunked his exams, is a heroin addict and doesn't seem to care much about his parents one way or the other.
Conclusion - being smacked either:-
1) Had opposite effects on the two of them, or
2) Makes no difference, either good or bad.
So which one is it? I find it strange that so many people are so absolute in their opinions - "Smacking's always wrong", or "There's nothing wrong with a good slap" - on a subject which has no absolutes, no 100% correct answers.
Like the "Which is the best guitar" question, it's up to the individual to decide, there's no such thing as absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. IMHO! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:25 PM

There are so many sub-issues and side-issues in this that it is impossible to ever have agreement. The proposed Calif. law might be a good start, but obviously it will only be enforceable if someone is seen doing it in public and can be caught, or if they injure a child enough to be suspected....kids UNDER 3 sure aren't gonna know they can report it!
   Once the kids are OVER 3, all bets are off? That is silly.....
I don't think this law would solve much. Just like jaywalking laws, it would be only a way to prosecute and place blame if something bad happens....which is fine, but doesn't solve the problem.

   A careful, universal program of education, continuously repeated like drug awareness programs, might gradually get parents to change habits...but among certain....ummmmm.."demographic groups"....it will be VERY hard to explain why violence, which is all they know, never solves much.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM

I raised three, and they all respect me. None fear me, and they all turned out just fine.
Two of them told me in their later years that the thing that kept them in line was not wanting to disappoint me. The third says I'm her hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM

This is a very nasty type of legislation. Typical of what we get when lawyers become politicians.

It prepares a trap for those who oppose the bill. They can be asked "Why are you opposed to stopping child abuse?" or "Why are you in favor of beating two-year-old children?".

Normal people will not beat children nor will they sexually abuse or starve them. Nor will they leave a two-year-old locked in a hot car in July while they go shopping. This type of behavior is tragic, but it happens, and no amount of Nanny State meddling will prevent it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:35 PM

Old school - The freedom to raise your children in your own way.

New school - Parents should not have the right to choose how to discipline their children.

Physical abuse of anyone is against the law. Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating.

Its a fine line but the responsibility rests with the parents, not the government. If a parent goes too far, we already have laws to deal with it.

Its just a way to deprive citizens of one of the last freedoms they have left - the right to raise your child according to your own beliefs.

btw - My oldest (boy) was spanked (occasionally) but the law changed and the youngest (girl) was not spanked. He is a gentle, loving and generous young man. She is self-centered and competitive with little or no concern for others. Was it the spanking that made the difference? I only know that she was much more difficult to raise and highly demanding of my time and attention. She was an unhappy, brat. He, on the other hand, was a happy child that everyone loved. He always remembered his manners.

As adults, I'd definitely say that he is a happy person with many friends and excellent social skills. She is still struggling to understand other people's boundaries. If you, as parents, can't enforce the rules, who can?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM

As Bill D already mentioned - legislation is often brought in to deal with the people who abuse their privileges.

How sad that the self-same legislation usually deprives responsible people of their freedom of choice...

Nobody said life was fair...

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:44 PM

Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating.

Spanking someone younger and smaller than you is abuse. You can be in favour of abuse but don't insult us by trying to re-define it. Plain and simple abuse. No matter how judicious the parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:08 PM

I never, ever, hit my dogs, either, and every last one of them has turned out just fine, including several very fearful and very unruly adult rescues. Sorry, but I just don't believe it's necessary to smack a child (or an animal). The situation shouldn't be allowed to get to the point where an adult feels it's necessary to do that to get a kid's attention. Some kids are more difficult than others, but reacting in kind solves nothing long-term.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM

Hear, hear.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

We may not OWN our children but we come pretty close to it. You may believe that they are given from on High or that you made them yourself, regardless Nature has entrusted them to your being, initially. Initially being the key word here.

We already have laws aplenty to deal with child abuse when detected. We need courts that will uphold those laws ( are you listening Vermont, Massachusetts?). More legislation and grandstanding opprotunities for politicians is not what is needed.

Parenting, like life, is more art than science. The most basic foundation for the whole enterprise is LOVE. That's the magic that ultimately makes the whole thing work, if it's going to work at all. Again, if you are REACTING to your children out of frustration, anger, chemical dependence, mental illness, emotional illness, indifference, sexual perversion or any such like! that is WRONG!

Some folks don't need to be having children because of aforementioned problems which remain unresolved. I don't think this thread should expand beyond the question of the proposed legislation but these are all factors that enter into the question of discipline and what mode that discipline should take. We all play it by ear in family dynamics. We all have baggage. We all need to be aware of what is in our baggage and its potential to harm our children. If you have your head on straight and your emotional baggage squared away. Good. If your child needs a swat to get their attention do so but without physical injury to the child. Listen to your child. They will let you know what you need to do. Love them always. If you can't handle it admit it. No shame in that. Find help. Find what works right, in the best interest of the child.

And as a footnote. If a child's crying "bothers" you, know that crying is a natural and healthy exercise for a child. They NEED to do it to develope their lungs and tweak their hormone system. If the crying is unnatural or it makes you suspect that something else may be going on, go to a doctor or clinic. If you need a break (and we ALL need a break from time to time) by all means arrange some downtime for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

"Peace... "...hitting an infant?"

??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here."

Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under. It's a scary thought to me that humans would need such a law in the first place. However, I guess some folks in California figure a law of that nature is necessary.

I have no idea whether or not Clifford Olsen was spanked as a child or not. Or Hitler, or bin Laden. But one thing I do know is that YOU wouldn't hit a child fer krissake. If I have offended you or implied I thought that of you, please accept my sincere apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Hitler was ,in fact, beaten by his father.
I've known plenty of adults my age who were beaten as kids, and none of them turned out worth a damn. No amount of anecdotal evidence will convince me otherwise. Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it.
Every child is born with a clean slate, and there are no "bad" kids; they are made that way by failed parenting.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM

Nothing like a hasty generalization to cap off all dialogue kendall! Cite your evidence and condemn all those who may have suffered to an abysmal Hell. If no anecdotal evidence will convince you why do you use anecdotal evidence to try to convince me?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Diesel
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM

My Child is tough, I mean that, on both myself and my wife - he was tough bringing up. At 3+1/2 he ran ahead of me in a shopping aisle - straight out toward a main road where the buses drive. Calling and shouting for him to stop meant nothing - and I have a loud voice when I need, it was his 'fun' to ignore us.

I ran and caught him about a metre or two from the road edge - he may have been in the process of stopping - I wasn't ! My hand met his bum as I lifted him - and I apologise to no-one for this. Either instant punishment then and there for what he nearly done - the consequence of him under a bus is a much harder alternative.

He has gotten a few smaller slaps on the bum, or the hands over the years. And I do wish I never did that.Yet on reflection - I wouldn't consider it OTT, but still regret I ever felt I had to.

He's now 6, I love him to bits, he's still very very tough, but not half as bold. And no he doesn't need a slap anymore, now a stern 'Stop' or even a little 'cough-cough' is sufficient.

His sister is now nearly 3 - hasn't ever needed the same approach - pure different personality. And that is where it comes from - how far beyond the edge the child pushes balanced with how much the parent tries.

Good parents struggle to get it right, and every parent/child is different. No legislation will ever get it right - so with existing laws for obvious harm - leave it alone.

Imagine the parent hysterical or just mean - mentally punishing a child - nothing physical, yet emotionally can do more harm to a child in the long term - how do they propose to check that ????

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:26 AM

...A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop...

Well said kendall!

They will push the limit until they get that little pat on the butt, and it's a thousand times better than days of brainwashing for the smallest infraction, believe me.

I'm not surprised your kids turned out fine, bet they love you lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:28 AM

"Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under."

Thanks for the clarification, Peace.

The only time a child under three may need a spank is if he/she is repeatedly doing something unsafe like hitting their forehead against a window pane. I know that sounds strange but...

If all else fails...

I pretty much agree with what slag has said.

kendall I disagree with your statement, " Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it."

Most abusers and beaters have a history of abuse; but not all abusers and beaters continue the abuse. Some people do learn not to pass it on. I repeat, a swat or a spank is not abuse. Its just politics to make more laws on this issue while we sit back and turn a blind eye to real abuse, like sexual abuse and beatings.

Do something about that instead of focussing on parents who are doing their best to curb anti-social behaviour and behaviour that might endanger their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:45 AM

I didn't really intend to get into this debate but.....
My children are not my property, but it is my job, as a parent, to look after and protect them while they are too small to do it themselves, to make sure they are healthy, clean and loved; to make sure they know how to take their place in society and behave with kindness, courtesy and decency; to be able (and as soon as possible) to look after themselves. If I feel, along the way, that a smack is necessary for my job to be done right, then I WILL smack them and I do not believe it is anybody's right, nor anybody's business, to tell me how I should perform my job. The fact that part of the job is to keep them healthy and loved (and that means mentally healthy too) immediately precludes beatings, hitting with an object, or even smacking on a regular basis, since that would damage them, mentally, if not physically. An occasional smack will not harm them and may be necessary, but it's up to me to judge that

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:00 AM

Well said Lynne, so many parents think that because they can put up with their ill behaved little monsters, we should also be expected to do so.

BTW Kendall, it's nice to know I'm not worth a damn!

Giok