California Legislator Proposes Ban on Spanking

[lawrocket 3]

No, not THAT kind, but basically any form of corporal punishment on children under the age of three.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070119/lf_afp/uspoliticschildren_070119202053

"The bill, backed by Democrat Sally Lieber of San Francisco, a member of the state legislature, would outlaw spanking children three years old or younger and carry a possible penalty of jail time or a 1,000-dollar fine....

The bill, which was still being drafted, would make the crime a misdemeanor and be written to ban "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that," Lieber said."

So, it seems that both parties have their own individual ways of getting into our private lives and how we raise our children.

Pass the Tylenol...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

No, not THAT kind, but basically any form of corporal punishment on children under the age of three.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070119/lf_afp/uspoliticschildren_070119202053

"The bill, backed by Democrat Sally Lieber of San Francisco, a member of the state legislature, would outlaw spanking children three years old or younger and carry a possible penalty of jail time or a 1,000-dollar fine....

The bill, which was still being drafted, would make the crime a misdemeanor and be written to ban "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that," Lieber said."

So, it seems that both parties have their own individual ways of getting into our private lives and how we raise our children.

Pass the Tylenol...

Aint gonna stop corporal punishment in the privacy of the home though...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[akarunway 1]

I read that earlier. What a crock. No fucking wonder the kids are so fucked up today. Can't smack em when they need it. Time out. My ass. Threat of an ass beating kept me in line as kid (well for the most part). I can understand the baby part tho. Won't pass. Already a lot of opposition

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Royd 0]

Quote

I read that earlier. What a crock. No fucking wonder the kids are so fucked up today. Can't smack em when they need it. Time out. My ass. Threat of an ass beating kept me in line as kid (well for the most part). I can understand the baby part tho. Won't pass. Already a lot of opposition

I have a sister who bought into that mentality when she adopted two children in the late '80's.

Instead of dealing with a situation and being done with it, she turned into an overstressed screamer, but she didn't hit the kids.

[vortexring 0]

It's not that bad - it is for directed at children under 3. Why on earth would you smack a child of 3 years old anyway? Too many parents whack their kids through anger when they're naughty, rather than calmly deciding on a suitable course of action.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[peregrinerose 0]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a swat in the ass and I think the law itself shouldn't be passed, but realistically, 0-3 yo probably shouldn't be spanked to begin with.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Why on earth would you smack a child of 3 years old anyway? Too many parents whack their kids through anger when they're naughty, rather than calmly deciding on a suitable course of action.

Why on earth is right.

At that age, there is almost no 'intent' on the child's part to do anything anyway. It still mostly instinct.

All spanking does for a kid that age is scare them, teach them that their parents are scary and that it's appropriate to hit when you're angry. Of course they don't really understand all of that. It's just cause and effect - but the years 0-3 are formative to a person well beyond what we fully understand.

I don't advocate hitting your kid EVER but 0-3 should be a no-brainer for everyone.

Who would HIT an infant?
Or a TWO YEAR OLD?

Like vortexring said, parent's who've lost their temper. That's who. That's not discipline.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Andy9o8 2]

We raised 2 kids entirely without corporal punishment of any kind, and they've each turned out to be decent, respectable, responsible people. I know fully well, from experience, how hard it is to raise kids, especially if they're hell-raisers. We raised our kids with pretty firm discipline, but all of it was completely non-corporal. It is a myth that you can't do a good job raising decent kids unless they're spanked.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

I read that earlier. What a crock. No fucking wonder the kids are so fucked up today. Can't smack em when they need it. Time out. My ass. Threat of an ass beating kept me in line as kid (well for the most part). I can understand the baby part tho. Won't pass. Already a lot of opposition

Is it critical to hit a child under 3 to instill discipline?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[lawrocket 3]

It IS a myth that corporal punishment is necessary to raise good kids. It is similar to the myth that all corporal punishment damages children.

Do I agree with corporal punishment? No. Do I think it should be banned? Absolutely not.

There are reasonably good arguments from all sides. When there are reasonably good arguments on all sides, maintain the status quo.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

When there are reasonably good arguments on all sides, maintain the status quo.

Interesting.

I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm.

Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another.

Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[tbrown 26]

Quote

It's not that bad - it is for directed at children under 3. Why on earth would you smack a child of 3 years old anyway? Too many parents whack their kids through anger when they're naughty, rather than calmly deciding on a suitable course of action.

Our kids are now 18 and 22, but they got a very few special spankings before they were 3 years old. In each case, safety was involved. They had done something really dangerous. One was wandering around in the street, "because she felt like it" - her words. The other wandered away from her mom and hid in a ladies' room toilet stall while her mom and big sister frantically searched for her and even called the cops to report a missing child. In each case, one well aimed swat across the tail focused their attention marvelously. They KNEW beyond any doubt they were in seriously deep shit (there's something to be said about preserving the novelty of spanking for that reason). But otherwise, they were punished with time outs, being sent to their rooms, no television, being grounded and not able to play with friends, etc. And all in all they grew up to be remarkably well behaved children, at least that's what a lot of adults told us along the way.

I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Democrat, but the Demos from San Fran are tripping on some heavy blotter acid. I'm surprised they haven't tried to ration toilet paper to save the fucking trees yet....

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Pass the Tylenol...

Something stronger than that, please...

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

All spanking does for a kid that age is scare them, teach them that their parents are scary and that it's appropriate to hit when you're angry. Of course they don't really understand all of that.

It's important to explain why you're spanking you're child. I'm all for giving them multiple chances, but it reaches a point where a good swat on the ass gets their attention. The sooner you do that, the better, as long as its needed.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

We raised 2 kids entirely without corporal punishment of any kind

Maybe you should write a book.

We are all engines of karma

[vortexring 0]

I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Democrat, but the Demos from San Fran are tripping on some heavy blotter acid. I'm surprised they haven't tried to ration toilet paper to save the fucking trees yet....

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I read that earlier. What a crock. No fucking wonder the kids are so fucked up today. Can't smack em when they need it. Time out. My ass. Threat of an ass beating kept me in line as kid (well for the most part). I can understand the baby part tho. Won't pass. Already a lot of opposition

Is it critical to hit a child under 3 to instill discipline?

Did you read the " I can understand the baby part tho"? To me a child under 5 is a baby. Once they get around other children in school for example and get out of line I have no problem w/ a swat to the ass

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

When there are reasonably good arguments on all sides, maintain the status quo.

Interesting.

I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm.

So which one has that potential? It's obvious these days that large number of children get no discipline at all, and are becoming little princes and princesses. This is harmful. Spanking may not be necessary to instill discipline, but I don't think we've proven that it doesn't work.

I'll grant the people one thing - they at least put in some sort of age limit. In Texas they'd probably ban it for all adults, and actually mean to.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Did you read the " I can understand the baby part tho"? To me a child under 5 is a baby. Once they get around other children in school for example and get out of line I have no problem w/ a swat to the ass

The problem here is that it is a downhill slide to total govt. control.

You say 5 yr. old, someone else says 7 yr. old.

Well, when they are old enough to smack you in the mouth and tell that they are taking the car for the evening, knowing damned well that you can't do a thing about it, because the law is on their side, it'll be to late.

The next thing is that you won't be able to raise your voice to them because it might damage their fragile egos.

I believe the Democratic party just loves the introduction of anarchy into society. Not that they could actually deal with the end results.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

When there are reasonably good arguments on all sides, maintain the status quo.

Interesting.

I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm.

Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another.

Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby.

Child abuse is and has been against the law for some time.

The problem with this law and others like it is the government deciding for us what is right. Contrary to popular belief, the government cannot and for the love of all that's holy should not protect us from ourselves.

If you have one feeling about spankings, fine, go ahead. If someone disagrees, that's their perogative. Just don't be so arrogant that you think you know what's best for everyone else.
(by "you" I mean lawmakers, not you in particular, bella)

We all need to remeber that when the government intervenes in an argument on our side, we should be wary. Whose side will they take up for the next issue?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Too many parents whack their kids through anger when they're naughty, rather than calmly deciding on a suitable course of action.

And those people will still do it. A law will not prevent them from getting angry and striking out. But it could prevent a calm parent from using it when they feel it is needed....Such as playing in traffic.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But there is a massive difference from a well aimed swat and a spanking.

Not under the proposed law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflybella 0]

Not spanking your child is NEVER harmful. Never.

Not disciplining your child maybe/is.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When there are reasonably good arguments on all sides, maintain the status quo.

Interesting.

I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm.

Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another.

Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby.

Child abuse is and has been against the law for some time.

The problem with this law and others like it is the government deciding for us what is right. Contrary to popular belief, the government cannot and for the love of all that's holy should not protect us from ourselves.

If you have one feeling about spankings, fine, go ahead. If someone disagrees, that's their perogative. Just don't be so arrogant that you think you know what's best for everyone else.
(by "you" I mean lawmakers, not you in particular, bella)

We all need to remeber that when the government intervenes in an argument on our side, we should be wary. Whose side will they take up for the next issue?

At no other time in life is it appropriate or legal to hit another person.

Why should the ONE exception to this law/rule/code of conduct be our own children?

I agree with you that the government should stay out of our private lives when it comes to consenting adults. And honestly, even about how we raise our children. But this is different. This is protecting someone from harm.

This law says NO ONE gets hit. Not you, not me, not any child.

I'm cool with that.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Democrat, but the Demos from San Fran are tripping on some heavy blotter acid. I'm surprised they haven't tried to ration toilet paper to save the fucking trees yet....

But, why not lump in all Dems as the same as the SanFran Dems and make it easier.

((I've really enjoyed your posts today))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants