manofstrad Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 I think the Welsh Assembly stop trying to tell parents how to be parents. There is already criminal law to presucute parents that beat their children, as opposed to just giving them a slap as chastisement, so a law to criminalise good parents that wish to discipline their children is unnecessary imo. Did you hear it on the radio too mj? your opinion sounds very similar to that of one of the more sensible interviewees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 It's not about the state 'meddling', unless you consider the state is already meddling by outlawing various types of abuse and neglect within the family. Abuse and neglect are rightly illegal. Interfering in the way parents want to bring up their children and the state deciding to be arbiter of particular parenting methods certainly is meddling. A lot of hitting of children is done in an abusive way. To enshrine the right to hit in law enables abusers to continue. After all, who is going to keep records documenting how many times individual parents hit their kids, how hard and for what reasons? The people who feel hitting is a parent's right? I doubt it. This is another falsehood. Just because smacking children is legal, that does not mean child abuse is also legal. There are already various laws and legal instruments which make child abuse illegal. There is no-one policing the fine line between discipline and child abuse, but this doesn't seem to be a consideration for some people, so it is fair to say that those people seem more concerned about the right to hit children, than they are about the rights of children not to be physically abused. That is not a slander, it is a resonable conclusion to logically arrive at. And it is certainly not the same thing as claiming parents who want hitting to be legal are 'unconcerned by child abuse' which is what you accused me of but not what I said at all. No it is not a logical conclusion to arrive at. Your assumption that the wish to retain the right to chastise and discipline (note not abuse) children means you're less concerned about child abuse in society couldn't be more wrong and is frankly a perverse suggestion. It's a bit like saying some car drivers are bad and kill people, so let's ban cars. And if you're a sensible car driver that think cars shouldn't be banned, then you must be more concerned about being able to use your own car than the people that get killed by cars. Or some people can't handle their drink, so let's ban alcohol. And if you quite fancy the odd glass of wine and think it's a silly idea banning alcohol, well you must be more concerned for your own pleasure than those that get beat up by drunks. But you are partly right. I am concerned for my right to bring up my children in a way in which I see to be good and proper so that they grow up to be good people who enjoy life and can achieve things, rather than the state telling me what they think is the right way to bring them up regardless of what I see fit as a parent. That doesn't mean I am less concerned about child abuse in society, but my priority is bringing up my children. Of course, child abuse does go on which is illegal, but it will do no good what so ever to criminalise parents who legally and legitimately chastise (note not abuse) their children by smacking. As for policing the 'fine line', that is the job of society at large, of people that come into contact with children such as family, teachers, doctors, social workers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Hmm, if the Welsh are banning it, then it might happen in England I suppose!Well we know what the welsh do with sheep, let's not let it catch on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 When you say no to a child you have to assume that the child understands "no" in the same way as you do. A small child is an empty vessel and devoid of any understanding of the consequences of its actions in the same and adult understands them. What children do respond to is pain and an accompanying word. It's a process..smack accompanied by "no". As the child develops the "no" can be better explained and the "smack" can be dis-guarded. If it continues then there may be other issues.I was going to post something similar (explanation taking over as the child develops comprehension of reasoning), but didn't fancy tackling the posts I expected in reply - I'm glad I'm not the only person who has this point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well we know what the welsh do with sheep, let's not let it catch on here. It did catch on. We eat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 One listener, a woman in her mid-thirties, phoned into the Radio 2 show to express her strong support for the ban. Her story was that when she and her sibling were children, their father was overly aggressive when disciplining them. On numerous occasions the children had phoned the police in total fear of the parent, only to be told that the police could not interfere in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 One listener, a woman in her mid-thirties, phoned into the Radio 2 show to express her strong support for the ban. Her story was that when she and her sibling were children, their father was overly aggressive when disciplining them. On numerous occasions the children had phoned the police in total fear of the parent, only to be told that the police could not interfere in the matter. Can't have been that much in fear, phoning the police numerously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 One listener, a woman in her mid-thirties, phoned into the Radio 2 show to express her strong support for the ban. Her story was that when she and her sibling were children, their father was overly aggressive when disciplining them. On numerous occasions the children had phoned the police in total fear of the parent, only to be told that the police could not interfere in the matter. They wouldn't have intervened in a wife-beating case at the time either, so that's a rubbish argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 One listener, a woman in her mid-thirties, phoned into the Radio 2 show to express her strong support for the ban. Her story was that when she and her sibling were children, their father was overly aggressive when disciplining them. On numerous occasions the children had phoned the police in total fear of the parent, only to be told that the police could not interfere in the matter. Is that couldn't or wouldn't, was domestic violence a police matter, or was it not considered to be that much of a problem then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Couldn't you just hire someone to slap your kids, thus not breaking the law ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.