[Ikrleprl]

The govt-uber-alles types aren't wasting any time starting their fibs. The article already uses "spanking" and "hitting" a child interchangeably, as though they were the same thing. As though parents were nailing their 3-year-old with a left cross and knocking him across the room. And this article even mentions "whipping", as though that had anything to do with spanking. They must be REALLY desperate to lie that badly.

Spanking is a swat on the butt with an open palm. Works on some kids, not on others, when very young to let them know the parent is boss, and usually never needs to be used again, and is completely legitimate. Only parents can decide what will work on their kid, and proceed appropriately. It would sure be nice if govt would stick to truthful definitions of "abuse, for a change.

When a kid too young to talk, learns to crawl and starts fiddling with an electrical outlet, are you going to "explain" to him that electricity can kill him? Or just gently pull him away every time, trusting yourself to be the savior until the one time your back is turned? Or do something that convinces him that fiddling with electrical sockets is a bad thing so that HE will avoid them?

But, government knows better than parents, once again. Interestingly, even most Californians oppose this bill. That doesn't faze the govt-uber-alles types, of course, they will impose it anyway. For the children.

------------------------------------------

MercuryNews.com | 01/18/2007 | No-spank bill on way

No-spank bill on way

by Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

[Eromereorybig]

Darn it! I love hitting babies. What will I do with my spare time now?

[MegaJIT]

You would think a california state legislator would be too busy doing real work to get involved with nonsense like this. If she was my rep I would have to pretend I lived somewhere else.

[JTS_tv]

I'm torn on this one. I'm not a parent, so my opinion is lessened. I know that as a young child I received (very few) spankings (bare hand, bare bottom, no bruises or lasting marks) but most of my punishments were standing in the corner. After age 4 or 5 I stopped receiving any kind of corporal punishment.

Did I end up as a bad kid as a result? I'd say no. I grew up being polite and respectful, and not because I was physically afraid of my parents. I also always knew that violence was wrong, and I didn't get into fights (I still have never hit anyone out of anger).

I've also seen kids (my experience as a teacher) who were completely out of control, and I know that they would get "whoopins" at home. Did this corporal punishment prevent them from being little assholes? Nope.

However, I can also understand that it's hard to get the attention of a 2 or 3 year-old who is doing something dangerous. My dad would tell me that a swat on the diaper (for noise, not pain) did wonders. Can I see that? Sure. Will I spank my kids? Can't say. I hope not. But, I do think that hitting a kid anywhere but on the ass and with anything but an open hand is wrong.

[Ikrleprl]

The govt-uber-alles types aren't wasting any time starting their fibs. The article already uses "spanking" and "hitting" a child interchangeably, as though they were the same thing.

Darn it! I love hitting babies. What will I do with my spare time now?

See? There goes another fibber now.

Can I call 'em or what?

[Usogwdkb]

This is absolute bullshit and if a person doesn't know the difference between a spanking and a beating, then he's a total idiot. Sally Lieber is trying to stick her nose where it has no business being and hopefully, there are people smarter than her running the show.

[Eromereorybig]

See? There goes another fibber now.

Can I call 'em or what?

I guess the difference between spanking and hitting is only who is committing the violence and who is on the recieving end.

If a parent smacks a child with an open hand, it's called a spanking.

If a child smacks a parent with an open hand, it's called hitting, as the parent will say "no hitting!" to the child.

If a man smacks a woman with an open hand it's called hitting and he can be arrested for it.

But let's keep it legal to smack little babies, great idea grown ups.

[Ikrleprl]

I've also seen kids (my experience as a teacher) who were completely out of control, and I know that they would get "whoopins" at home. Did this corporal punishment prevent them from being little assholes? Nope.

As I said, it works on some kids, not on others. Parents must decide, not some overbearing government.

And for the ones on which it does work, it must be done EARLY, as I also pointed out. The purpose is to deliver the message that Mommy or Daddy mean what they say and must be obeyed. Once that's delivered, the kid WILL remember it, and subsequent spankings are usually not needed at all.

But a kid who grows up used to doing bad things and NOT getting any meaningful correction ("explaining" things to him works for some, but not for others as we've all seen), won't get any benefit from being spanked at age 5 or whatever. Then it's not a result of his bad behavior - he already knows there are no consequences to his behavior. Then it is only Mommy or Daddy getting angry and being mean. Very little corrective effect.

That bureaucrat in the article who said kids under 3 shouldn't be spanked, doesn't understand the purpose and effect of spanking on kids where it works. Many parents don't either. In fact, if a kid hasn't been spanked before that time, doing it afterward has much LESS chance of working, and is probably useless.

But putting government in chage of child discipline is about the worst possible solution to the problem. They should limit their intrusiveness to genuine child ABUSE, which spanking isn't.

[Ikrleprl]

I guess the difference between spanking and hitting is only who is committing the violence and who is on the recieving end.

You guess wrong, as usual. Congrats on maintaining your near-perfect record of discussion futility. See my other posts for elaboration.

[JTS_tv]

As I said, it works on some kids, not on others. Parents must decide, not some overbearing government.

You'll notice, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[blackjackblax]

This is absolute bullshit and if a person doesn't know the difference between a spanking and a beating, then he's a total idiot. Sally Lieber is trying to stick her nose where it has no business being and hopefully, there are people smarter than her running the show.

First time I have ever agreed with something you've written. Well done I think spanking is healthy.

[Seiblybiozy]

AHH, another reason to move to that trashy state....err, I should say that state run by trash.

Depending on the child and of the circumstances, there is nothing wrong with a swat to the backside....IE: Ass, not legs, back or anywhere else.

[Thifiadardivy]

Title says it all. This is utterly stupid. I had spankings as a kid (to proponents of this legislation, note that it does not say "I was beaten plenty of times as a kid"). With many people I've encountered, I'm inclined to believe that a few more would have gone a long way.

How do you know the difference between beating and spanking? One is to correct bad behavior, though I'm sure there's a better way to word it. Good example? See Acorn's toddler example given earlier. Is the government going to be able to dictate WHY we did something, or what we were thinking when we did it? Cheer it on, if you're for the road to Orwellian mind-policing.

I love the blatant obfuscation going on, by the way, with "hitting" and "spanking". I'm with Mrs. M on this one. If one doesn't know the difference, most likely he/she is inept. In all honesty, the person probably needs to get back to growing up first and has no place raising a kid. (Oh wait, can I then ask the government to deem fit who should raise kids? I mean, gee, if we're going to tell them how to parent, why not just decide who will parent?)

Ridiculous.

[JTS_tv]

AHH, another reason to move to that trashy state....err, I should say that state run by trash.

The Governator comes to mind...

[ClorrerVeks]

Darn it! I love hitting babies. What will I do with my spare time now?

False Arguement Warning:

Your right, hitting kids is wrong, much better to kill them before they are born.

[Thigmaswams]

Darn it! I love hitting babies. What will I do with my spare time now?

Proving once again that your claims of supporting freedom is fettered in bullshit.

It's none of your or the State of California's business how someone is disciplining their child. Abuse is one thing, and a far cry from getting spanked. It is doubtful that this bill will see the light of day, but if it does that's a sure sign (not like there aren't several already) for people in California to pack their bags and get the hell out because the government police state has begun.

I'm not at all surprised you have no problem with this. You are not an advocate for personal freedom or liberty, just the theft of it.

[Thifiadardivy]

@ SamBurgh, agreed. Anybody who supports this will have quite the wily time trying to explain how this does not support taking away liberty from an individual.

[Wdlglivi]

This is crap. Our government should have bigger concerns for the war and the economy. There is no baby-spanking epidemic or crisis that needs to be addressed. This bill steps on American liberties.

[defenderfors]

This is completely ridiculous. On the other, what do you think about this:

Father Says He Shot Son With BB Gun To Teach Lesson

GROVELAND, Fla. -- A Groveland man explained to WESH 2 News how an eye-for-an-eye style of parenting landed him in jail.

Teorry Henderson, 23, told WESH 2 that he shot his 4-year-old son with a BB gun as punishment after the boy first shot his sister with the gun.

Henderson said that sitting in jail has given him plenty of time to think about his parenting practices. He admitted that he turned a BB gun on his son and shot him. He said he wasn't trying to hurt him; he just wanted to teach him a lesson.

MORE This was stupid, but I understand the guy's logic. I BB is unlikely to penetrate, but it smarts like heck. Sad thing is he may lose his kids and spend 30 years in prison for this.

[Eromereorybig]

Proving once again that your claims of supporting freedom is fettered in bullshit.

It's none of your or the State of California's business how someone is disciplining their child. Abuse is one thing, and a far cry from getting spanked. It is doubtful that this bill will see the light of day, but if it does that's a sure sign (not like there aren't several already) for people in California to pack their bags and get the hell out because the government police state has begun.

I'm not at all surprised you have no problem with this. You are not an advocate for personal freedom or liberty, just the theft of it.

you call the right to smack children a freedom?

Wowieee!