Baby Smacking - Is it acceptable?

[Huntingtons]

I think parents should beable to smack thier children, I also think that physical abuse (a different thing to physical discipline) should continue to be rooted out and dealt with most severely.

it cannot be made legal without making child abuse legal.

 

[Dukat]

it cannot be made legal without making child abuse legal.

I disagree, unless of course you want to define child abuse so broadly that things like sneezing the same room as a child coming under that categorey.

I guess its down to opinion, but to me child abuse describes an act or prolonged series of acts that are carried out specifically to cause the child moderate to severe physicial or psychological harm.

Smacking the child several times per day for more than one day at time would to me describe abuse, as would smacking the child once, if it is hard enough to leave a mark or cause damage to the child.

Where as smacking the child once or twice over a period of say, 6 months would come under discipline, as long as the smacking was not intense enough to cause damage to the child

I think the problem is that common sense is required - if you give your son a right hook that sends him flying across the room, you've just assaulted your child and deserve to be punished in the eyes of the law. However, if you're son has just taken a shit and wiped it all over the dining room walls(for example), giving the child a moderate smack and grounding him would not, imo, constitute child abuse. You're showing him that what he's done is very, very wrong and that you're not happy.

There are other ways to deal with something like that, which I think is what tris is saying, but I dont think that parents who choose to physicially discipline thier children should be persecuted by people who do not share the same opinions.

 

[Huntingtons]

I disagree, unless of course you want to define child abuse so broadly that things like sneezing the same room as a child coming under that categorey.

I guess its down to opinion, but to me child abuse describes an act or prolonged series of acts that are carried out specifically to cause the child moderate to severe physicial or psychological harm.

Smacking the child several times per day for more than one day at time would to me describe abuse, as would smacking the child once, if it is hard enough to leave a mark or cause damage to the child.

Where as smacking the child once or twice over a period of say, 6 months would come under discipline, as long as the smacking was not intense enough to cause damage to the child

I think the problem is that common sense is required - if you give your son a right hook that sends him flying across the room, you've just assaulted your child and deserve to be punished in the eyes of the law. However, if you're son has just taken a shit and wiped it all over the dining room walls(for example), giving the child a moderate smack and grounding him would not, imo, constitute child abuse. You're showing him that what he's done is very, very wrong and that you're not happy.

There are other ways to deal with something like that, which I think is what tris is saying, but I dont think that parents who choose to physicially discipline thier children should be persecuted by people who do not share the same opinions.

now discribe that as a law which cannot be misinterpretated (sp?). now you see why it cant be made a law... and i cannot believe you just wrote as long as it doesnt leave a mark its ok... that makes me sick.

 

[Dukat]

and i cannot believe you just wrote as long as it doesnt leave a mark its ok... that makes me sick.

What makes me sick is how you can read what i said and quote me as saying that line.

I did not and do not believe that "as long as it doesnt leave a mark its ok". I never said I did and frankly I'm quite pissed off that I even have to fucking defend myself like this because of the way you've misquoted me.

if it is hard enough to leave a mark or cause damage to the child.

When I said this I was trying to define, in a common sense way, what "too hard" is when you're smacking a child. I thought this would be made more obvious by the examples I gave after saying this.

I mean for fucks sake read what I said originally - how can you conclude that I would think like that after reading my first post?

I refuse to believe that there is no way to word a law that would govern the difference between discipline and abuse, but like I said, half the problem is we're trying to involve the use of common sense in this debate, and some people just dont seem to have that.

 

[tris-]

I refuse to believe that there is no way to word a law that would govern the difference between discipline and abuse, but like I said, half the problem is we're trying to involve the use of common sense in this debate, and some people just dont seem to have that.

i think its trying to define what a slap is though. like if i slap someone on the ear (have someone do it to you sometime) it will be a lot worse than slapping them on the ass. even if the same amount of force is used, being slapped on the ear is a lot worse. and by on the ear i mean like this

(o) <--|

(o) is the ear looking from the side of the head
<-- direction hand is going in
| open palm

are both acceptable? i dont think i misunderstood you btw, i just think it would be hard to define anything like it

 

[Huntingtons]

What makes me sick is how you can read what i said and quote me as saying that line.

I did not and do not believe that "as long as it doesnt leave a mark its ok". I never said I did and frankly I'm quite pissed off that I even have to fucking defend myself like this because of the way you've misquoted me.



When I said this I was trying to define, in a common sense way, what "too hard" is when you're smacking a child. I thought this would be made more obvious by the examples I gave after saying this.

I mean for fucks sake read what I said originally - how can you conclude that I would think like that after reading my first post?

I refuse to believe that there is no way to word a law that would govern the difference between discipline and abuse, but like I said, half the problem is we're trying to involve the use of common sense in this debate, and some people just dont seem to have that.

i didnt misqoute you coz i qouted it all, but that you even mentioned that either hitting too hard and/or leaving mark is what should be forbidden sickens me. the is kinda like the sexual minimum age law, its not to forbid minors to have sex inbetween but to prohibit the abuse of children

 

[Dukat]

i didnt misqoute you coz i qouted it all,

I'm talking about this:

i cannot believe you just wrote as long as it doesnt leave a mark its ok... that makes me sick.

You are stating that I said something that I didnt say. This is whats called "misquoting".

but that you even mentioned that either hitting too hard and/or leaving mark is what should be forbidden sickens me.

I dont really understand what you are saying here, the fact that I tried to find a generally accepted definition of what is and what isnt classed as abuse sickens you? what? how can we even have a discussion about this if no one knows what anyone else classes physical abuse as?

I said "if it does leave a mark or cause damage to the child" then it should be classed as abuse. That isnt to say that anything else is fine. Just that the law could have certain things which are definately classed as abuse, and other things which depend on the context of the act as to whether or not they are classed as abuse.

For example

Hitting a child once and leaving a mark would be classed as abuse, no matter the context.

However

Hitting a child lightly would depend on the context of the act as to whether or not it is classed as abuse, if it happens too often, or is done without reason, then it would be classed as abuse, however, a single, light smack that happens once or twice over the period of months would not be classed as abuse.

All of this is hypothetical and just trying to expand on what I have been saying already, to try to get it into your head as to what I my point is - as long as common sense is applied as to what is acceptable and what isnt, there shouldnt be a problem.

the is kinda like the sexual minimum age law, its not to forbid minors to have sex inbetween but to prohibit the abuse of children

what are you talking about?

 

[DocWolfe]

How is beating your child any different than beating your wife..? Yet wife beating is perfectly acceptable.

I enjoy both on a regular basis... I dont understand why everyone cant.

 

[dub]

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

 

[liloe]

It's a useful last resort.

Toddlers don't have a sense of right and wrong and sometimes can't be reasoned with. If your child is on a rampage and speaking/shouting isn't getting through, sometimes a smack is enough to stop them.

As long as it isn't abuse, you shouldn't interfere.

fully agree with that

 

[Amanita]

imo parenting is hard enough as it is without having your every move examined with an eyeglass.

For example, mum who had four toddlers all at once simply did not have the time to sit us down and explain to us why our actions were bad when we were all in a shop... And tbh, it really depends on the child and the family involved as well instead of deciding that what works for you works for everyone. I also think that "charts" about how much smacking would be considered abuse would be grossly inaccurate and possibly damaging to someone who tried to handle their children by someone else's standards.

I don't consider myself emotionally scarred and I feel I have good relationships with my parents who both smacked me occasionally.

 

[DocWolfe]

If you've got too many... do as the chinese do and drown them like kittens! Great fun.

 

[Himse]

im not PC in the slightest, could say im anti-pc. i just dont agree in smacking a small child, i think its weird that people even find it acceptable.

if the parent had some conviction about them and could put fear into the kid without smacking, they wouldnt need to smack them. if the kid is at a level where smacking is needed, maybe the parent should blame them selves instead of the kid. the parent has let them get out of control and is now too lazy to resolve it and would rather use violence.

Honestly it's not like they beat the child till he's black and blue, its just a small clip to make them stand to attention in a way.

It's crazy that some of you think its so bad, as if any loving parent would set out to really harm their kids, they just want them to grow up knowing some discipline.

My Dad's friend was on a train, and he smacked his son of about 7 who was being a pain in the ass, some woman told him "your not allowed to do that" or so, maybe people are stupid and led on by the media, i don't know, but i was smacked sometimes on the hand and it never did me any harm!

 

[Bugz]

but i was smacked sometimes on the hand and it never did me any harm!

Ohhh but it did!

 

[megadave]

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

its 4:16 tobit and worded completely different


Nothing wrong with a little disciplinary smack imo. Idle threats arent going to work with some children and it's what is needed. Theres plenty of kids these days who are in need of a backhander imo. Received a few myself and i'm glad for it.

 

[Chronictank]

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

4:15. If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all.



megadave is right
4:16. See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.

 

[Dandare]

How is beating your child any different than beating your wife..? Yet wife beating is perfectly acceptable.

I enjoy both on a regular basis... I dont understand why everyone cant.

LMFAO!!! :worthy:

On a serious note tho, my g/f has a 8 year old boy, he's a right mardy little bastard, but she does'nt smack him much now, only if he really pushs his luck but has always had a crack when younger, in public or wherever.

If we go out for a pub meal he sometimes plays up cos he knows he can as we get embarrassed, however if he was my real son I'd glady smack him until he has learnt the lesson of not fucking about in public.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What the f*ck...i leave one thread alone for a while and you guys are quoting the babble?...err...bible?

 

[dub]

its 4:16 tobit and worded completely different

i stand corrected

now dont slap me

 

[dub]

4:15. If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all

well its not like 4:15 is bad advice either

 

[liloe]

What the f*ck...i leave one thread alone for a while and you guys are quoting the babble?...err...bible?

Tobit is not the bible

 

[old.Tohtori]

Tobit is not the bible

Close enough

 

[Darksword]

Just saw on the news that a study showed that 80% of people would like a shop employee to intervene when a toddler is being smacked in their shop. What a load of ballony. I don't want anything to do with customer's and family relationships as a shop employee.

That said, do you think baby smacking is acceptable? Only at home? Or in the public too? If you don't think it's acceptable - how are we to show dominance over our children?

I know when I was a toddler, the fear of having a good ol' smack made me shut up...

Anywho, discuss!

every case is different, i think reasonable force should be used, but that being said, even reasonable force is too much; i mean theres up to a limit that most would see is acceptable, but even that is pushing the limits if you see what i'm saying?

personally i'm more for debate and reason, i dont think anyone should be given the power to hurt their children, there will always be extreme cases and i see it as a misuse of power, it's something thats too ahrd to police, and i dont think we can really say that there shouldnt be any outside intervention otherwise why even have a nspcc or many/any childrens charitys?

 

[tris-]

Nothing wrong with a little disciplinary smack imo. Idle threats arent going to work with some children and it's what is needed. Theres plenty of kids these days who are in need of a backhander imo. Received a few myself and i'm glad for it.

its because of idle threats a smack is even needed. if the parent has no conviction about them, the threat will be idle. they lead them selves down a path of showing a weakness to the kid and then have to resort to smacking.

 

[Bugz]

But what if your son/daughter is being out of line and hitting you, your partner or his siblings? Are you for the whole 'see how you like it for yourself?' to stop them? Or just give them a fine telling off?

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

But what if your son/daughter is being out of line and hitting you, your partner or his siblings? Are you for the whole 'see how you like it for yourself?' to stop them? Or just give them a fine telling off?

I'd probably grab 'em by the ears, drag 'em upstairs, and have them sit in their room for two weeks....
harsh? Maybe, but I sure as hell won't tolerate any disrespect towards me or my wife from my kids. (Not that I have any of those, but theoretically )

 

[Ezteq]

smacking children only comes in to play when the parents haven't set disciplinary boundaries(sp??) as far as I can see, its when the kid pushes and pushes and the parent literally has no other way to control them. This is the parents fault because (as we all know lol) when your a kid you will do whatever you can get away with.

The augument of "sometimes its necesary to show them they are in danger" is one I'm not sure of, you see it often if a toddler goes to run out in the road but usually the smack is a fright reaction from the parent.

From personal experience I'd say that whenever my parents hit me it was because they lost control, they had no idea how to react (usually my mother going off on one because she's an insane harpy and me being a smart mouth...whats that mother can't think of a response ok slap 10 shades of shit out of me that really makes me respect you pfft!).

The truth is kids need discapline and they like it, it makes them feel safe to know rules and paramiters ( again sp??) if the parents cba to set these the kids go wild and they don't enjoy it, no kid wants to be throwing a tantrum and be yelled at or smacked they would rather be happy and play (ofc i accept there are exceptions to this rule some kids are just shit lol).

I hate it when in a supermarket and the kids are running riot yelling and misbehaving then after yelling a few times and seeing how futile this is the parent slaps them one, if they had taken the time to train the child properly the situation would not have arisen in the first place. Its like with dogs, if you train them properly you have a good dog (again there are exceptions) dogs that bark constantly and bite and are agressive are due to bad, lazy owners.

Don't know how many of you have ever watched supernanny but I have seen it a few times and its amazing the change that comes over these kids when boundaries are set they seem so much happier (honestly they go from mini demon from hell to happy nice child in a few weeks) and she doesnt hit them, she will restrain them, physically pick them up and move them but not hit them and it works!

I was smacked, hit, slapped loads when I was a kid but this was because of my parents losing control and not handling the situation properly, as a result of this I did not respect them. I haven't had contact with anyone I am related to for years now and tbh I'm glad.

Parents should be given lessons tbh, your made to take lessons and pass a test before you can drive a car but to bring a human being in to this world and care for it you do not need any training, this really does baffle me, having children is not a right you should not be able to have them just because you have the right biological equipment for it but because you have proved you are competant and capable of being a good parent.

 

[Calaen]

Parents should be given lessons tbh, your made to take lessons and pass a test before you can drive a car but to bring a human being in to this world and care for it you do not need any training, this really does baffle me, having children is not a right you should not be able to have them just because you have the right biological equipment for it but because you have proved you are competant and capable of being a good parent.

While I agree with everything else you said, I think this paragraph is horse shit If we had this way of thinking the human race might not have existed, because by all accounts Eve was a deceiver who I would not pick as a good mother.

No one can be tested on whether or not they will be a good parent, because until you have that bond with a child that is your own no amount of testing with other kids or anything else will come close to how you feel towards your own child. Having a child is a right and no one can tell anyone that they will or wont be a good parent.

 

[tris-]

While I agree with everything else you said, I think this paragraph is horse shit

i agree with this geordie bastard. how can you think its feesable for a government agency to decide if you can parent a kid?
learning to drive a car is another matter altogether. i think its perfectly acceptable for a government agency to say "yes they are safe" or "no they are not safe".
but to think someone could sit down and design a test to see if you can be a parent, well i dont know what your smoking man, but give me some

 

[Ezteq]

No one can be tested on whether or not they will be a good parent, because until you have that bond with a child that is your own no amount of testing with other kids or anything else will come close to how you feel towards your own child. Having a child is a right and no one can tell anyone that they will or wont be a good parent.

Your right you can't tell who will or won't be a good parent but if they all went to preperational lessons while the kids were either in zee womb or very young then at least they would know how to cope, whether or not they used the information they learned is a different thing.

of course me saying "there should be lessons, and a test" is just me stating something I wished was true (like some people saying they wished it would rain vodka, it'll never happen but wouldn't it be great). However I do believe that people (some people) really don't recognise the awesome responsibility in becoming a parent, they think nothing of getting pregnant or getting other people pregnant, hay we get a council house brilliant!

Having a baby isn't something to be taken lightly, your having a human being and the way you treat them is going to shape them and prepare them to cope with the world. I honestly believe there are some people who should not have children and this is from my own bad experience and partly because of that I myself have chosen never to have them, also because I know that I am too selfish to be a good mother.

anyway I have managed to derail and go off topic, my own personal opinions aside I don't think smacking is a great way to establish respect between child and parent, i don't think it really does much good (many people say "it never did me any harm" but did it help that much either?).