Adults face consequences in all aspects of life. We face them, and (hopefully) learn from them. None of these include inflicting pain on us.
Children also need consquences. It's up to us as parents to provide them so that they can learn from them. I don't believe that these consequences should include inflicting pain either.
So in saying that I still stand by the statement, you wouldn't hit an adult, so why hit a child....! It's illegal to assult an adult by trying to get a point across or give them a consequence for their actions, so why should it be legal to do that to a child?
All I have to say is stun guns and tasers
Sent from my magical black talky thingy using BubHub
So are we viewing this as a moral issue or a legal one? And, if we look at it solely as a legal one then does that mean that smacking is 'okay' in cultures where corporal punishment still features in the justice system?
I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, by the way, but rather trying to separate out some of the arguments.
If people are saying they believe that it's morally wrong for one person to hit out at another, regardless of force or size, then that is one issue.
If people are saying that we should do unto children what we do unto adults then that's a separate issue.
Likewise if we say that our justice system has moved on to no longer recognise that as appropriate discipline for adults, and therefore parents should look to that as a moral guideline when disciplining their children. A separate issue again.
I was making the point that people who do smack may argue that they 'tap' or 'startle' their child, but that they do not intend to inflict pain, and nor do they achieve that.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!