Abuse is a very vague term. Obviously, we can look at certain behaviors and say that was abusive. But our society has gotten to the place where everything is "abusive" in one way or another. And, as Ava rightly pointed out, it has NOT decreased the amount of abuse. I would say abuse has gotten worse, but I personally feel that's more as a result of the breakdown of the family unit.
Yes, a balance of politics is exactly right. I do see this issue as a big deal. Why? Because I am SICK of parental rights being tampered with. I don't spank often and I am not dependent on it or anything....I will never support a big government. Since I do not see relief to any child being brought by spanking being illegal and only see more government restrictions and intervention...then I am 100% against it. I do think the gvt. would dream up more regulations to inflict on parents. They could say homeschooling is abuse and give reasons why. They could give reasons why taking a child to church is abuse. Nope...not buying it that government intervention is needed or will not be harmful here. No way...did we find a point of departure. Normally we are always in agreement...I think...lol
Exactly my point that the gvt. could say anything that suits their will is abusive. And yes, I have a distrust of the government. lol. I also agree that the main problem is the breakdown of the family unit.
If the government were to decide that since a few parents are inept at homeschooling, all homeschooling should be illegal... is that ok? I mean, how's that any different than what Steve said here: We wouldn't want the vulnerable to pay. Would we? And responsible parents will adapt.
Exactly! The government can implement laws but those laws will never implement wisdom and self-control into an out of control, abusive, parent. A ruling such as this might justly punish the few, however it will victimize the masses while protecting nobody. If it did, abuse would have stopped when it was declared illegal; Ava's point!
Just wondering how well a time-out works on a toddler who won't stop when you say to and runs out into the street. Running in the street = physical pain. Period. There are other instances we used spanking. I also wanted to add that, prior to the spanking I received at 17, I had not needed to be spanked since my early childhood. My dad was calm, he explained why I was receiving physical punishment in addition to the discipline that was to follow. I have nothing but high praise for this man. About the scripture reference to the 23rd Psalm....the staff is used to guide, but the rod was used as a weapon to ward off predators. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. There are guidelines we have from scripture, none of which are outdated. The only things that have changed is that Jesus is now our propitiation for sin. Do I still deserve to be stoned? You bet. Can I plead the blood of Christ instead? Absolutely. God's laws are always just. Pain and shame bring about repentance. No chastening is pleasant, but it accomplishes what it sets out to do. God doesn't always use the same method to bring about repentance in people. I can only pray for wisdom to handle each child and each situation in the most effective way to bring about a true change of heart in my children.
There are some, like myself, who don't see the sense in inflicting physical pain to prevent my child from physical pain. If my child happened to run into the street I wouldn't really use a time-out anyway. I would put partial blame on myself because obviously the child was not capable of being free to run into the street yet. If my child did that it would be awhile before my child was free to run into the street (i.e. have to hold hands when near street, stay in fenced yard). It is interesting to hear this perspective. I hold the Bible in high regard as to the validity of it today, but I have a very different interpretation than you do. I do think the direct instruction to parents in the NT makes the issue clear to me.
Nova Scotia was the first place in North America to pass laws forbidding cruelty to animals, in 1822, the same year a similar law passed in Great Britain. In 1880, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was given the legal right to act as agents of the law on behalf of abused animals. Around the same time, people realized that while folks could not longer torture and abuse their animals, they still had free reign to abuse their children. There was a particular case that came up in the courts where it was argued that the father could legally treat his child worse than his dog. So the law was amended to give the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals authority to deal with cruelty to children under the age of 16. The SPCA filled this role until 1932. I think it's somewhat shocking that the only reason there are any laws on the books protecting children, is because we couldn't bear to see animals abused. Steve - I think we've found a reasonable balance here in Canada. The law reads as such: Thinking further about Brooke's dad using a switch on her (illegal in my country), I still don't understand why it was needed at all. It seems to me losing the car made a much bigger impact, based on what she said. And it's the more adult consequence. As for the whole "how do you stop them from running into the street" question... I don't see how spanking would work at all, to be honest. What worked for me was close supervision and hand-holding. Oh... and a fortuitous dead squirrel. "See that squirrel?" I told my wide-eyed preschoolers. "He ran into the road, and a car ran over him, and now he's DEAD. He won't ever play games again. Poor squirrel. He should have listened to his mommy." For awhile after, my daughter would scream, "DEAD SQUIRREL" every time she saw her little brother heading for the road and he'd freeze in his tracks. Ah, sweet psychological trauma - the best tool in my parenting toolbox!
I wonder if any parenting sites sell dead squirrels to have on hand for such a situation! :lol: There are many, many situations where one could find themselves with a child not holding your hand, so I won't go there. It happens in which case you need to know that your child will respect your "stop" with an immediate immobilization. If they are old enough to reason, then reason. If they are not, teach them this safety rule in whatever way works. It's better to have a sore bottom than to cast your body into the street (paraphrasing, of course ) The spanking at 17 brought about the submission to authority that then set me on the course to endure the natural consequences of my actions, being the loss of trust with the car keys and unsupervised free time. The fact that I had younger brothers to hold the keys was merely my lot in life as the firstborn.
Dead squirrels! LOL That's great! You know...I do spank but I never spanked for the street thing...LOL. Just really didn't come up. If you went in the street...or near it...because I count the edge of the driveway or the curb too far...you simply came in and were not allowed back out. Yeah, I know I just gave you non spankers some ammo...LOL. But it also disproves the theory that spankers are brutal, nonthinking parents who resort to spanking because they are not smart enough to come up with anything else. I know no one here said that and I did say it in jest.
I agree that you need to know that a child will respect your request to stop. I'm not sure what situations you refer to, but if my child was not able to respect a request to stop he is not free to wander away from me.
Sounds like psychological abuse to me. Depending on the child, it could very well be. So does that make you wrong for using it? No, but I know plenty of parents who would get all over you for terrorizing your child in that way (and no, I am NOT one of them!).
Richard Dawkins has written, and repeated publicly, that the sexual abuse of a child is less of a crime than a Christian parent teaching a child about hell. His proposed solution is for the authorities to take newborn babies from Christian parents and to ensure no contact for 18 years. This is the kind of nonsense being proposed by the current generation of radical atheists. A long way from a discussion about spanking, I know, but the topic of psychological abuse came up.
LOL...I thought of that...only because if I did that to my kid it would be 100 times worse then a spanking. In fact, it would lose the meaning. My other kids may be okay with it though. So...why is that psychological means are accepted and physical ones not? I have experienced psychological discipline that I would consider far more abusive than a spanking. So what's the verdict here? And who is it up to? Now, I also am not one to think you were terrorizing your child. However, from a certain perspective someone who say you damaged or injured your child.
Is it really a long way from a discussion on making spanking illegal? Slippery slope when we allow someone to define abuse for us....
I actually know a man (divorced) who wasn't permitted to take his daughter to church. It was a non-denominational church, but had no doctrine that would put it out of the mainstream. But the mom got a restraining order against it, claiming it was a cult. She could stay with Dad on the weekend, but not come to church. Nor was he permitted to discuss religion with her at all.
Depends on the child, depends on the family. Which is why, of course, I don't completely oppose spanking, even though I think it's utterly unnecessary for us. If I'd had an exceptionally sensitive child who had no idea animals die, then I likely wouldn't have done that. My kids were impressed, not terrorized. They got up very close and checked the squirrel out from head to toe. Then my daughter spent some time looking very closely at car wheels. This is the same kid who was thrilled to spend several months up to her elbows in pig guts, when I signed her up for a series of Saturday scientific dissection courses. She was nine. Of course... I can't imagine a highly sensitive child surviving in my household, even with us trying to be careful. We would be a terrible family for that kind of person.
Well, with me being an imperfect parent, the situations that came to mind included a time when several adults were present, all of which thought someone else was in charge of watching the child. The street example was arbitrary. There are hundreds of situations where you would have no warning but would find your child out of arms reach and in physical danger. The fact of the matter is, unless we lock our kids in a bubble, there is no predicting what will come their way. Didn't intend to delve so deeply into the reasoning behind my sarcasm. Serves me right. :lol:
