• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Parents Be Given More Freedom to Discipline their Children?

Should Parents Be Given More Freedom to Discipline Their Children?


  • Total voters
    30
I respect my kid enough to smack him when he's doing something wrong. ---is another way of looking at it.

Well, that is the dumbest thing I have read so far today.


So, if you don't respect them - then what?

You don't hit them?

Or you beat them silly?
 
Well, that is the dumbest thing I have read so far today.


So, if you don't respect them - then what?

You don't hit them?

Or you beat them silly?

Well if he misbehaves and I show indifference, is that not a lack of respect for the boy?
 
You should NEVER spank your child.

If you do, then you are a weak parent who must threaten/use physical violence on his/her child to keep them 'in line'.

Any idiot can use violence as discipline.


Any parent that spanks their child in my home is told that if they do it again - they will be asked to leave.

I'm not sure I agree with this. When I was very young my dad would give me a swat on my behind when I did something that might harm me (like attempt to stick my finger in a stove flame), or did something that violated a previously stated restriction. As I got older this happened less and less because I began to learn what was acceptable and what was not.

Furthermore, I acted properly in public, because I learned misbehavior carried a spanking with it when we got home.

Today, I am constantly seeing children throwing tantrums, arguing with their parents, and acting like little ruffians. Meanwhile I see these parents trying to talk to them, threatening time outs, and counting to five...1...2...3...4...5. But the kids soon learn there is nothing after 5 that will affect them. As far as a time out? Just ignore it and wander away.

Now I respect your position vis a vis your own children. If it works for you, more power to you. But I still feel a swat on the behind, or a spanking using minimum force and then later used as a promise for bad behavior seems to work a lot more effectively than all the other "Dr. Spock" methods advocated these days. That's my opinion anyway.
 
Physical discipline should never be carried out by anybody but the parent/legal guardian. Never, IMO.

Even though spanking your child may be 'legal', as others have said, the threat of having to deal with DHS, the possibility of having your children taken from until they decide if your behavior with your own child was proper is such a horrify prospect that many won't deal with the discipline a child actually needs to function correctly in society.
 
I do not think there is any justification or need for hitting, spanking or man-handling children. With consistent punishment of wrongdoing, even if it is by occasionally removing the TV from a kids bedroom or denying them computer time or mobile phones, but mostly by just giving time-outs and good talks with the child.
 
I do not think there is any justification or need for hitting, spanking or man-handling children. With consistent punishment of wrongdoing, even if it is by occasionally removing the TV from a kids bedroom or denying them computer time or mobile phones, but mostly by just giving time-outs and good talks with the child.

Since I don't know the statistics for the Netherlands, does that work well for you all? Because it sure doesn't work well here IMO, our teen crime and violence to say nothing of the disrespect in general is a little staggering.
 
If you are saying that no one, under any circumstances, has the right or my permission to discipline (even spank) my child, then I disagree.
I wasn't talking about your children. I was talking about mine. You do what you want with your kids.
 
I didn't answer the poll because the "do what you have to do" option wasn't there. Some kids need corporal punishment but most don't. Using corporal punishment as a first option is not the best answer, IMO, but if the non-violent measures consistently don't work you have no other choice but to turn up the volume.


I didn't ever spank my daughter and she turned out great! :)
 
You should NEVER spank your child.

If you do, then you are a weak parent who must threaten/use physical violence on his/her child to keep them 'in line'.

Any idiot can use violence as discipline.


Any parent that spanks their child in my home is told that if they do it again - they will be asked to leave.

That's fine, I'd leave any home where the owner tried to tell me how to discipline my children anyway.

I don't believe spanking should be a parent's only (or even first) method of correcting their child when they do something wrong, but I don't think spanking your kids for some things makes you a weak or bad parent. IMO spanking should be saved for when a kid really screws up. When they've done something extremely dangerous or stupid and need to be corrected immediately and strongly with no risk of misunderstanding.
 
I didn't answer the poll because the "do what you have to do" option wasn't there. Some kids need corporal punishment but most don't. Using corporal punishment as a first option is not the best answer, IMO, but if the non-violent measures consistently don't work you have no other choice but to turn up the volume.

I didn't ever spank my daughter and she turned out great! :)

Based upon your response, your answer should be "yes, they should be allowed to use corporal punishment if they think it is necessary."

You agree it should be an option, although one you felt no need to use with your own child.
 
Based upon your response, your answer should be "yes, they should be allowed to use corporal punishment if they think it is necessary."

You agree it should be an option, although one you felt no need to use with your own child.
But it's only a kinda' sorta' "yes, they should be allowed to use corporal punishment if they think it is necessary." As I noted, they should try many other options before resorting to physical force. Your option really doesn't cover that caveat.

From a pragmatic standpoint, minor (or restricted if you prefer) corporal punishment should be "de-criminalized" - not readily accepted in society but not illegal. ;)
 
After seeing a Poll concerning parent accountability for the actions of their children, I began to wonder...are American parents unduly restricted in their ability to discipline their children?

Every day we see and hear news about parents being held more and more accountable for the actions of their children, but we also refuse to allow them old-school methods of discipline.

Once upon a time parents had a variety of options; from spankings to sending the kid to bed without supper, or banishing them to their bedrooms without access to electronics. But after several isolated horror stories of truly abusive behavior, parents have been told to limit their methods to time-outs and stern talking-to's. Parents also face issues with outsider's and even their own children calling Children's Services at the slightest hint the child has been "manhandled."

So should parent's be given more freedom to discipline their children, or are things working out just fine as they are?



In my state, it is highly improbable that any parent would be bothered by the government for merely spanking their children. I can't speak for any other part of the country.
 
If a person is so stupid that they lack the communication skills or credibility to convey a lesson to a child (or are just too lazy to expend the effort) and instead have to rely on violence for it, then they are unfit to be a parent.
 
Since I don't know the statistics for the Netherlands, does that work well for you all? Because it sure doesn't work well here IMO, our teen crime and violence to say nothing of the disrespect in general is a little staggering.

Most violent criminals were violently abused as children.
 
In my state, it is highly improbable that any parent would be bothered by the government for merely spanking their children. I can't speak for any other part of the country.
No one would look twice here, either.
 
Most violent criminals were violently abused as children.

There is a huge difference between a swat on the butt and violent abuse. I got spanked as a kid when I miss behaved, as did my siblings and friends by their parents. None of us is a violent criminal.

Part of parenting is knowing your children, what is actually effective in discipline for them, and applying properly.
 
I voted, but don't think anything has really changed. I was spanked; I spank, the world keeps on spinning.

I never hit my son, ever, and he's turned out fine.
Maybe I was lucky.
 
That's fine, I'd leave any home where the owner tried to tell me how to discipline my children anyway.

I don't believe spanking should be a parent's only (or even first) method of correcting their child when they do something wrong, but I don't think spanking your kids for some things makes you a weak or bad parent. IMO spanking should be saved for when a kid really screws up. When they've done something extremely dangerous or stupid and need to be corrected immediately and strongly with no risk of misunderstanding.

Any idiot can use physical violence to force/teach behaviour.

The skill is to do so without resorting to such ridiculous means.

If the only way your child will listen to you is to threaten/cause physical pain against them...then clearly they don't respect you nearly as much as a child who listens to their parents without being hit.


Besides, physical pain as a deterrent deteriorates as the victim gets acclimated to it.

I remember when my mother used to spank me, it bothered me less and less as I got used to it (fortunately, she never increased the severity of the spankings); so much so that in the end, it became little/no incentive not to screw up.

So unless you plan on hitting them harder each time, it will lose it's 'effectiveness' with each application of pain.


Finally, there are those parents that simply do not wish to hit their children.

The thought is so uncomfortable that they cannot bring themselves to do it.

You obviously have no such comfort level.

Physically hurting your child does not bother you enough to not do it.

Which speaks volumes about you - and all the others who do it - as a parent and a person.


The bottom line is you consider striking defenceless children acceptable...noted.
 
Last edited:
Any idiot can use physical violence to force/teach behaviour.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who uses physical force to teach behavior is an idiot.

The skill is to do so without resorting to such ridiculous means.

If the only way your child will listen to you is to threaten/cause physical pain against them...then clearly they don't respect you nearly as much as a child who listens to their parents without being hit.

There are times when a point needs to be made to a child immediately and very clearly that something isn't okay. Spanking can be the best way to do that. It's best for younger children who are old enough to do dangerous things but not old enough to be reasoned with much yet.

For example, if I had a kid that was 2 or 3 that ran out into the road, I'd spank them, because it's important that I get the point across to them immediately and without room for misunderstanding that that's something that isn't okay to do. Pain is a good teacher because it gets down into our unconscious minds. We're biologically wired to avoid things that cause pain. A three year old probably won't understand if you sit down and explain to him why the street is dangerous and it's not okay to play in it, but he'll understand pretty fast that playing in the street makes his butt hurt and avoid it for that reason.

Besides, physical pain as a deterrent deteriorates as the victim gets acclimated to it.

I remember when my mother used to spank me, it bothered me less and less as I got used to it (fortunately, she never increased the severity of the spankings); so much so that in the end, it became little/no incentive not to screw up.

So unless you plan on hitting them harder each time, it will lose it's 'effectiveness' with each application of pain.

Which is why spanking is best used rarely.

Finally, there are those parents that simply do not wish to hit their children.

The thought is so uncomfortable that they cannot bring themselves to do it.

That's fine, I'm not saying you have to spank your kids or you're a crappy parent or anything. There are many different ways to discipline a kid, and every parent will need to find what works for them.

You obviously have no such comfort level.

Physically hurting your child does not bother you enough to not do it.

It probably will bother me to have to spank my kid and make them cry. Just like it would bother me to take away their favorite toy and make them cry, or ground them and make them cry. But as a parent you have to discipline your kid, and it's going to make them unhappy when you do. And I intend to use the most effective tools available to do that, whatever those may be.

Which speaks volumes about you - and all the others who do it - as a parent and a person.

The bottom line is you consider striking defenceless children acceptable...noted.

Yes, I do. I'm not sure why that's something to be ashamed of. Punishing your child is supposed to be unpleasant for the kid, otherwise it wouldn't be punishment. I'm not sure why so many people consider inflicting a little bit of physical pain which will fade in a couple of minutes at most to be such an awful thing. Why is that worse than taking away something they love as punishment? Doesn't that cause emotional pain? Why is that okay? Or grounding them in their room? When we do that in prisons it's called solitary confinement and people consider it cruel. Why is that okay to do to your kids?
 
But it's only a kinda' sorta' "yes, they should be allowed to use corporal punishment if they think it is necessary." As I noted, they should try many other options before resorting to physical force. Your option really doesn't cover that caveat.

From a pragmatic standpoint, minor (or restricted if you prefer) corporal punishment should be "de-criminalized" - not readily accepted in society but not illegal. ;)

Hmm, but doesn't "if they think it is necessary" cover exactly what your dillemma is? I added it because I agree that spanking is not the end all and be all of discipline, but only one option among many a parent should be allowed to use. Therefore, it would seem to me the option does not require a parent to spank, simply supports the use of the option if in the opinion of the parent taking into consideration all other factors, it is necessary to re-inforce proper behavior.

For myself, "spanking" means use of the flat palm of one hand on the behind of a child 1 - 5 times. I would not opt to use an "enhancer" like a belt, clothes-hanger, paddle, or other inanimate object. I think that an open palm on the meatiest potion of a child's anatomy does little real harm to it while allowing the parent to feel the pain he is inflicting and use that to moderate the punishment.

BTW, I don't equate a quick "slap" of a hand that is reaching for something dangerous as "corporal punishment," just a quicker and less harmful measure than jerking an arm out of it's socket.
 
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who uses physical force to teach behavior is an idiot.



There are times when a point needs to be made to a child immediately and very clearly that something isn't okay. Spanking can be the best way to do that. It's best for younger children who are old enough to do dangerous things but not old enough to be reasoned with much yet.

For example, if I had a kid that was 2 or 3 that ran out into the road, I'd spank them, because it's important that I get the point across to them immediately and without room for misunderstanding that that's something that isn't okay to do. Pain is a good teacher because it gets down into our unconscious minds. We're biologically wired to avoid things that cause pain. A three year old probably won't understand if you sit down and explain to him why the street is dangerous and it's not okay to play in it, but he'll understand pretty fast that playing in the street makes his butt hurt and avoid it for that reason.



Which is why spanking is best used rarely.



That's fine, I'm not saying you have to spank your kids or you're a crappy parent or anything. There are many different ways to discipline a kid, and every parent will need to find what works for them.



It probably will bother me to have to spank my kid and make them cry. Just like it would bother me to take away their favorite toy and make them cry, or ground them and make them cry. But as a parent you have to discipline your kid, and it's going to make them unhappy when you do. And I intend to use the most effective tools available to do that, whatever those may be.



Yes, I do. I'm not sure why that's something to be ashamed of. Punishing your child is supposed to be unpleasant for the kid, otherwise it wouldn't be punishment. I'm not sure why so many people consider inflicting a little bit of physical pain which will fade in a couple of minutes at most to be such an awful thing. Why is that worse than taking away something they love as punishment? Doesn't that cause emotional pain? Why is that okay? Or grounding them in their room? When we do that in prisons it's called solitary confinement and people consider it cruel. Why is that okay to do to your kids?

You obviously don't get it.

Hopefully you will someday very soon.

I used to think as you do long ago...not any longer.


Good day.
 
Hmm, but doesn't "if they think it is necessary" cover exactly what your dillemma is?
In actual practice it comes down to that, as I noted earlier, but in theory (like we're discussing) a parent could decide it was necessary at the onset instead of trying other methods first. We've seen that a couple of times in this thread. That's why I'm good with it being 'frowned upon' but not illegal.
 
Punishment upto a certain limit is good but when it crosses the limits, it becomes abuse..so i guess within limit everything is okay..and parents are not the one who has to decide the limits.
 
Back
Top Bottom