What rights does a parent hold when it comes to punishing their child? Do you agree with "spanking" or other traditional forms of punishment or "parental privilege"? At what point is punishment excessive?
What rights does a parent hold when it comes to punishing their child? Do you agree with "spanking" or other traditional forms of punishment or "parental privilege"? At what point is punishment excessive?
It would be excessive when it endangers a child's life. A hit here or there does not do that, unless the parent is swinging like Ali.Quote by: ensayne
I, would much rather make them learn the hard way.
Unfortunately, that would exclude psychological trauma, permanent bruising, sexual abuse, threats against their life, etc.
Psychological trauma, i really dont get it. I think most of us went thru that with our parents and most of us are good citizens. I believe it is just another excuse lawyers use to win cases.
sexual abuse is not really a punishment. Threats are just that, threats, if they become real then it is not parental punishment anymore, it is a crime. (some threats that become real might not be crimes, ie: Keep doing that and i am gonna spank you.)
Hmm. I don't believe children are able to understand forms of punishment beyond corporal before the age of seven or so. After age seven though, I would not support corporal punishment. I think excessive punishment is arbitrary and should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Certainly I wouldn't support bloodying a child -- unless I found out he raped a girl or something, and then I'm afraid Satan himself would blush at what I would do to him.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Psychological, as in having to bend over and hold your ankles while keeping your knees locked, to the point where the child passes out and/or vomits. Chronic non-physical abuse of this type results in children with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), social withdrawal, developmental delay, impaired cognitive development, depression, substance abuse and conduct problems.
So you would support corporal punishment up until the age of seven?
Yes.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
I'm not sure if it is correct in saying that they "understand" corporal, or physical, punishment. Certainally they understand that they are being hurt, but I wouldn't say they comprehend WHY something was wrong other than the fear of that very pain.
I would suggest that it is never okay to intentionally harm a child whether it be smacking the bottom or the face. Are we really prepared to make claims that it is our right to harm them simply because we brought them into the world?
From what I understand about different parental techniques it seems probable that letting the natural consequences play themselves out is much more effective than instilling a child with fear. Other parents on this forum might be able to elaborate further on this subject.
Perhaps, I would suggest, if a child was raping anyone then the so called parents weren't doing a very good job to begin with wouldn't you agree?Certainly I wouldn't support bloodying a child -- unless I found out he raped a girl or something, and then I'm afraid Satan himself would blush at what I would do to him.
MMMM no, not that kind of psychological punishment. More of a "clean your room or you dont eat", it's his choice.
Kids today seem to be more protected by the government, and some take advantage of it. (i am speaking of 13 14 15 16 17 year olds)
I think kids before 10 do not understand by other means aside from a spanking, there are the instances that kids do understand, but, imo, the majority dont.
Sure. I support the right of all parents to raise their children into the man or woman they would want them to become.I would suggest that it is never okay to intentionally harm a child whether it be smacking the bottom or the face. Are we really to prepared to make claims that it is our right to harm them simply because we brought them into the world?
I'm pretty sure most children will end up thanking their parents for making them brush their teeth, for instance. I would, of course, balance corporal punishment with the why -- most likely, I would force my child to tell me why I spanked him, and then explain why their behavior was bad. But that would be after the corporal punishment.From what I understand about different parental techniques it seems probable that letting the natural consequences play themselves out is much more effective than instilling a child with fear. Others parents on this forum might be able to elaborate further on this subject.
Ah, how this differing thought pattern manifests itself in so many ways. You are left-wing, are you not? Therefore, you think that if there is a problem, then it's the authority's fault for not correcting it, and not the individual's fault. I am not a left-winger. I believe in personal responsibility. I came from a single-parent home where my father was always out working. I didn't go to school. I didn't socialize. Did I turn out okay?Perhaps, I would suggest, if a child was raping anyone then the so called parents weren't doing a very good job to begin with wouldn't you agree?
Children don't need parental guidance; it just helps. A lot. One is perfectly capable of making the right choices all on one's own. That one chooses not to is not the fault of the authority, but rather the one in question.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
[QUOTE=Lostinlife;731869]I'm not sure if it is correct in saying that they "understand" corporal, or physical, punishment. Certainally they understand that they are being hurt, but I wouldn't say they comprehend WHY something was wrong other than the fear of that very pain. [QUOTE]
thats why you explain to them.
i do it as this (i have no kids, but i did raise 3 brothers, i am the oldest by faaaaar)
1 warning- tell them this is gonna happen because of this.
2 second warning- tell them that this is the final warning and step one will happen.
3 consequences
4 explanation
the same rights that forces us to feed, clothe, and raise them.I would suggest that it is never okay to intentionally harm a child whether it be smacking the bottom or the face. Are we really prepared to make claims that it is our right to harm them simply because we brought them into the world?
that does tend to work, but from my experience it worked more on the older ones. My youngest brother, 11, is barely starting to understand the process. the older one of the 3 already understands it, i have not touched him in about 3 years.From what I understand about different parental techniques it seems probable that letting the natural consequences play themselves out is much more effective than instilling a child with fear. Other parents on this forum might be able to elaborate further on this subject.
You would not say the same thing if the parents actually raised a perfect kid and eventually the kid, at 16 goes on a rampage and kills or rapes someone.Perhaps, I would suggest, if a child was raping anyone then the so called parents weren't doing a very good job to begin with wouldn't you agree?
It is not always the parents fault. Most of the time it is, tho not always.
but with your "natural consequences" statement, the parents would never be at fault. What are parents suppose to do when you abide to "natural consequences"? Well the "natural consequences" of course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks