Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

[djwolford]

For those of you who haven't heard anything about it, there is a group trying to push a constitutional amendment to guarantee a parent's rights to raise their children as they see fit, including the right to spank kids, have more control over the type of education that the child receives, and a handful of other issues.
The Amendment would look something like this-
SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Parentalrights.org

More or less it's a counter measure to the current treaty that the UN is trying to push, which can basically be outlined as follows-

* Definition of children as all persons less than 18 years of age, unless the legal age of majority in a country is lower.

* General principles, including the right to life, survival and development, the right to non-discrimination, respect for the views of children and to give consideration to a child's best interests, and the requirement to give primary consideration to the child's best interests in all matters affecting them.

* Civil rights and freedoms, including the right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression, thought and association, access to information and the right not to be subjected to torture.

* Family environment and alternative care, including the right to live with and have contact with both parents, to be reunited with parents if separated from them and to the provision of appropriate alternative care where necessary.

* Basic heath and welfare, including the rights of disabled children, the right to health and health care, social security, child care services and an adequate standard of living.

* Education, leisure and cultural activities, including the right to education and the rights to play, leisure and participation in cultural life and the arts.

* Special protection measures covering the rights of refugee children, those affected by armed conflicts, children in the juvenile justice system, children deprived of their liberty and children suffering economic, sexual or other forms of exploitation.
UNCRC

So my friends, which side of this issue are you on and why? Poll coming for easy tallying...

[Mr. E]

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

[gwahir]

As a rule, I don't think much of parents' rights. They seem to relegate the child to the staus of property, and give the parent undue permission to make terrible decisions about its fate with little to no accountability. There's no reason, as far as I'm concerned, to say that the parent has any "right" to decide how to raise a child.

That said, we don't really have a better system, and there's probably not much the government can do to battle bad parenting -- I'm not sure spanking and what they have for breakfast are the major issues. But the claim that "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right" is, to me, ridiculous, dangerous and sad.

[sponge]

That summary doesn't really say anything about spanking -- in fact, I don't see much of anything in the UN summary that's really all that revolutionary (what a surprise, coming from the UN and all). I don't really care to bother to read the actual UN document but I assume the summary is correct.

That said, putting that into the Constitution would be pretty dumb. One of the great things about the US Constitution is that it's short and concise, and doesn't bother itself with petty stuff like this. The last time we put moral "law" in the Constitution, it was proven to be a miserable idea (Prohibition). This really strikes the same chord as the amendment people (idiots) are calling for to ban homosexual marriage nationwide. Let states decide for themselves, that's why the Constitution was written so concisely to begin with.

I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine,

Great anecdotal evidence you've come up with there. There have been plenty of kids who grew up with abusive parents who didn't turn out fine at all. It's not spanking, it's how much and how it's done.

[djwolford]

Great anecdotal evidence you've come up with there. There have been plenty of kids who grew up with abusive parents who didn't turn out fine at all. It's not spanking, it's how much and how it's done.

Well nobody is standing up for child abuse here. I think it's pretty normal for a child to come out of an abusive situation and not be fine. I think that what Mr. E is getting at is that spanking as a disciplinary measure generally does more good than harm for a child.

[sycld]

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

Regardless, you really think that this should be a constitutional matter, especially as a "states' rights" man yourself?

Though I think that parents should be able to raise their children the way they see fit (as long as it doesn't involve any egregious abuse, of course), I strongly feel that this sort of issue should be regulated at a state level. Moreover, any sort of federal regulation of this should not be in the constitution. I would oppose an amendment enshrining gay marriage for similar reasons.

And though I might be wrong, I don't remember any prominent cases in which parents have been arrested for merely spanking their children.

More or less it's a counter measure to the current treaty that the UN is trying to push, which can basically be outlined as follows-

...and this only confirms my stance, as the constitution should especially not be used as a platform for activism. And it sounds like typical paranoia over UN conventions from the more radically conservative elements in the US.

And what exactly in the UN articles opposes a parent's perogative to raise his or her child as she or he sees fit? Isn't it taken as a given that a parent or guardian should have oversight and ultimate control over their children?

As quoted directly from the document itself (emphasis my own):

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

So it sounds like the rights of the parents to raise their child as they see fit are well-protected in this document, does it not?

Well nobody is standing up for child abuse here. I think it's pretty normal for a child to come out of an abusive situation and not be fine. I think that what Mr. E is getting at is that spanking as a disciplinary measure generally does more good than harm for a child.

Again, though, where in the UN Convention on the Right of the Child does it say "though shalt not spank"? Are we making judgements on things we haven't read because "UN = BAAAAAD"?

[Mr. E]

It's an issue that the states aren't handling, for one, and it is an issue important enough that I think it should have established federal standards for another. That is why I am in favor of an amendment for it.

Gwahir, you hate rights so of course you aren't going to think that anything that has anything to do with rights is good. To say it is dangerous and sad is a little bit of a stretch though, I'd say. Parents create their spawn, and because they are solely responsible for its existence I believe that they do have a sort of ownership over it and a right to raise it as they choose, within safe reason and so long as it doesn't break any preexisting laws.

Children are tricky entities when it comes to rights. It couldn't hurt to have things be better defined.

[Shinysides]

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies. I don't necessarily think you should have to prove yourself a fit parent either, but it isn't a right by any means, having children is a privilege.

And as someone who was spanked as a child, I don't think it hurt me, but it also didn't do anything other disciplinary measures wouldn't have. I put spanking down to parenting style and personal choice because if you are doing it right, you aren't really hurting the child. Obviously there is a line between parenting and abuse, but I don't think spanking crosses it. However hitting your child in pretty much any other way does.

Had I voted another way though, I would have just voted that neither is important because as far as I can tell, the UN thing isn't even really directed at the United States, where most of those things are commonplace anyways. And the amendment to the constitution is just an over-reaction, much like people jumping up to arms every time someone in Washington even whispers the words "gun control". It seems like the UN thing isn't directed at us, and the amendment is just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Besides, I don't think that anytime in the near future child services will come breaking down your door because you spanked your kid for hitting his sister.

[simonj]

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

Well what makes you think kids who aren't spanked don't turn out fine? I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotal evidence which supports the idea that they do.

Taking the heavy handed approach is not the only way to discipline a child. One of the main issues about this is that if a parent has anger issues or even just had a particularly bad day then there's the chance it could cross that very fine line into child abuse. Not only that but an ammendment like this could possibly used to protect parents in cases of minor child abuse.

Just because something worked ok for you does not mean it will work for the world.

[Mr. E]

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, I'm just saying that parents should have the right to take either approach because spanking isn't going to hurt kids (no pun intended).

I also think that children must be viewed as a right, because if having children was a privilege there would be tighter restrictions on reproduction and child care would be more strictly monitored and regulated.

[sycld]

It's an issue that the states aren't handling, for one, and it is an issue important enough that I think it should have established federal standards for another. That is why I am in favor of an amendment for it.

States aren't handling this issue because it's a non-issue. Legislation on things like this is totally unnecessary when the issue isn't brought up to trial. No one is being prosecuted for spanking their child.

And again, you're a states' rights person. But is that only when the states' stances on the issues oppose your own?

Why should something as specific and as intimate as the way parents handle their children be handled at a federal level when such things as marriage and the death penalty are handled at a state level?

Also, do you find the UN convention objectionable? If so, why?

I also think that children must be viewed as a right, because if having children was a privilege there would be tighter restrictions on reproduction and child care would be more strictly monitored and regulated.

I understand this is a response to Shinysides, and not to me. Nonetheless...

And where is this "right" being threatened to the point that it must be specifically enumerated? There are plenty of rights that aren't so specifically stated, and often times those rights which are stated in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution can and are interpreted broadly enough to cover things like this.

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies. I don't necessarily think you should have to prove yourself a fit parent either, but it isn't a right by any means, having children is a privilege.

And how does one go about regulating such a "privilege"? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? Otherwise performing procedures on a person that violates their bodily integrity?

Of course, I agree that children should be taken out of situations in which they are being abused, as they

[Mr. E]

It is a non-issue now, but it won't be a non-issue forever. There is nothing wrong with preemptively dealing with an issue. But no, I agree that states should handle the majority of issues. Issues that should be handled by the federal government are issues that effect everybody. Parenting regulation potentially effects everybody. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else should stay with the states.

[Syme]

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies.

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

[Shinysides]

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

No, my vote isn't for the UN thing because some people are shitty parents, I voted for the UN convention because I think it may help protect children is other countries from some abuse. I just think it may promote better guidelines on child care in other countries. I was on the fence for a while choosing between voting the UN convention or voting neither, but I eventually came down on the UN side because of that thought.

Edit: And as far as the right/privilege discussion goes, I meant only that children should be taken out of abusive environments, not that people should have to prove their right to breed.

[Mr. E]

Also, morality is almost completely subjective. It can't be regulated in terms of passing it on to your spawn, because then we run into the issue of the government telling people what is right and what is wrong. Another reason to support the amendment would be to prevent government-imposed morality in the future.

[sycld]

It is a non-issue now, but it won't be a non-issue forever. There is nothing wrong with preemptively dealing with an issue. But no, I agree that states should handle the majority of issues. Issues that should be handled by the federal government are issues that effect everybody. Parenting regulation potentially effects everybody. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else should stay with the states.

As far as I'm aware, "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level.

In addition, over legislation is never good, especially in a difficult to change document like the Constitution, since such action is prone to either being co-opted by people to legislate on other issues or can lead to unintended consequences.

And finally...

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

...no amendment we have in the Constitution has such ridiculous language in it since it is not necessary. All it does is mark this as something written by a group of paranoid people.

[Mr. E]

Your second point is a fair one. I think if the amendment actually gets through to vote it would be better to pass it than not pass it purely from an implication standpoint, but it probably would be better to wait until the inevitable spanking lawsuit.

Also, I realize that "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level, but in my opinion that is what it should be, which is why I don't disagree with this issue being handled federally instead of state-by-state.

[MrTroy]

For those of you who haven't heard anything about it, there is a group trying to push a constitutional amendment to guarantee a parent's rights to raise their children as they see fit, including the right to spank kids, have more control over the type of education that the child receives, and a handful of other issues.

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

[sycld]

Also, I realize that "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level, but in my opinion that is what it should be, which is why I don't disagree with this issue being handled federally instead of state-by-state.

Okay, let's say that we do use this criterion to judge what should be treated at a federal level rather than a state level.

In this case, how does abortion affect less people than a "parents' rights" amendment? Don't they affect approximately the same population?

[djwolford]

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.) As for separation of church and state I hate to jump into this because it's a different topic, but that is not guaranteed by the constitution/bill of rights. The only thing we're guaranteed is that we can practice any religion we want to without government interference or bias towards any specific religion. I guess that's a matter of how you interpret the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

To be quite honest I don't know very much about either side just yet, but the issue intrigued me and I wanted to see where some of you guys stand on it.

[MrTroy]

I don't want to derail this thread, but the 1st amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that there is no official religion, and it means that religious things must be separated from government sponsorship. At the same time, the government can't prevent you from forming or attending any church, or practicing any religion or no religion at all on private property. Plain and simple.

[sycld]

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

Again, I don't get at all the impression that this UN convention violates any parental method or right that the vast majority of people in the US deems reasonable, including spanking.

Also, as I said earlier, a constitutional amendment should not be used as a stage for activism, and upstaging the UN in this manner is nothing more than activism. This is also why the flag burning amendment didn't pass and resulted in little more than a farcical display on the House floor.

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.)

That seems hard to believe. Perhaps the "private schools" were not accredited institutions, and thus didn't fulfill the state's requirement for children to be in school up to a certain age?

Oh, I just remembered something about Amish folks in PA and their children fulfilling minimum education requirements.

I'll look into this later, but only if I both remember and feel like it.

OOOOH, what do you think of me now????

There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that there is no official religion, and it means that religious things must be separated from government sponsorship. At the same time, the government can't prevent you from forming or attending any church, or practicing any religion or no religion at all on private property. Plain and simple.

Or it could mean that all religions have equal access to a public facility or even public funds, with no prejudice expressed to any particular religion that could be interpreted as approbation by the state thereof.

[MrTroy]

I think the lack of terminology of something like "respecting any 1 religion greater than others" or something similar to mean ANY religion.

No law respecting an establishment of religion. Religion in general, not plural as in specific religions.

[sycld]

I think the lack of terminology of something like "respecting any 1 religion greater than others" or something similar to mean ANY religion.

No law respecting an establishment of religion. Religion in general, not plural as in specific religions.

It actually says the "establishment of religion." What does "establishment" mean here, anyway? Does it merely mean establishing preference for any particular religion, or does it mean facilitating any religion's practice.

The Framers were purposefully vague about certain things. And that's the end of that.

[Mr. E]

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

[Syme]

In practice, the prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion" certainly does seem to mean laws that would favor one religion over another, rather than laws that provide benefit to religion in general, because (for instance) religious organizations are tax-exempt. Obviously that's a law "respecting an establishment of religion" if "establishment of religion" is taken to mean religion in general.

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

Where does the line get drawn, though? In your view, how many people does a law have to potentially affect in order to be properly handled at the federal level rather than the state level? This seems fairly arbitrary as well; why do you think that federal government should handle laws that affect lots of people while the states should handle laws that affect fewer people? What's the rationale here? Why shouldn't federal laws be passed that would affect a comparatively small number of people scattered across the entire country?

For the record, there are ~1.3 million abortions each year in the US and ~4 million children born each year in the US.

[sycld]

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

I'm referring to women that get pregnant.

[Mr. E]

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic. Also, parenting isn't just the woman's concern like abortion is (I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about).

[Shinysides]

(I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about)

Is there already a topic for this in AI? Because there should be. I would like to know other peoples views on that subject and why.

[Syme]

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic.

But abortion laws determine whether ALL women who get pregnant have the option of having an abortion; so arguably the issue is one that affects all women (or at the very least all women who are, have been, or ever will pregnant), and it's misleading to say that it only affects 1.3 million women per year because that's how many women have an abortion per year. All the women who considered an abortion but decided against one are arguably affected by abortion law as well, because they wouldn't have even been able to realistically consider the option if there was a law banning abortion.

By your logic here, laws about how parents raise their children don't affect all parents, only those parents who choose to raise their children in a way that would be regulated or prohibited under the regulations.

Is there already a topic for this in AI? Because there should be. I would like to know other peoples views on that subject and why.

There isn't at the moment, but feel free to start one. I'd be interested to learn other peoples' views as well.

[Mr. E]

The way I meant it to be conveyed was that laws about how parents raise their children affect all parents who choose to raise their children. I didn't word it well, but my point can still be interpreted I think.

[Syme]

The way I meant it to be conveyed was that laws about how parents raise their children affect all parents who choose to raise their children. I didn't word it well, but my point can still be interpreted I think.

Okay, but at the same time, laws about whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy arguably affect all women who get pregnant.

Aside from all questions of which laws would affect more people, you still haven't answered my earlier question: WHY should laws have to affect a certain number of people in order to be appropriate at the federal level? What's the reasoning behind this criteria?

[Mr. E]

That's just an opinion, nothing more. It seems more logical to me to departmentalize smaller, more specialized issues to individual states due to regional nuance. However, in my opinion, parenting is a universal issue that is too important to be left up to regionalism. That's completely subjective, I realize, but what are opinions if not completely subjective?

[Syme]

That's just an opinion, nothing more. It seems more logical to me to departmentalize smaller, more specialized issues to individual states due to regional nuance. However, in my opinion, parenting is a universal issue that is too important to be left up to regionalism. That's completely subjective, I realize, but what are opinions if not completely subjective?

Fair enough; but my own opinion is that it makes no sense to departmentalize issues to the states when those issues may be "smaller" (in terms of the number of people they affect) but are nevertheless nationwide, i.e. the people they affect are spread across the nation. For instance, abortion may be less common than parenthood, but it's still a nationwide issue. IMO, the issues that should be departmentalized to the states are those that are "smaller" or "more specialized" in terms of being localized vs. nationwide, or those that may vary substantially from state to state (e.g. agricultural policy). The issues of abortion and gay marriage don't vary substantially from state to state; no matter what state you're in, the same rights are at issue. The debate on these issues is over the same moral questions and the same legal rights in each state. To me, this makes more sense than saying that it's a state issue if 5% of the national population is affected, but a federal issue if 20% of the national population is affected.

I do think that this method objectively makes more sense than yours; basing the state vs. federal decision on the number of people affected by the issue seems utterly arbitrary to me, but the method I describe matches issues to level of government on the basis of how thoroughly or uniquely the level's jurisdiction encompasses the issue.

[Nick2.1]

I remember getting my ass beat when I was a kid and everyone I meet tells me that I am a perfect gentleman and I was thoroughly taught manners. So to a certain extent, parents should be able to discipline their kids in a physical manner. Most of the people my age that weren't raised the same way are selfish pricks(most of the time anyways). My little brother was never given the same treatment and now he abuses drugs and alcohol. I understand that not everyone who is given this sorta discipline ends up being proper, but the worlds going to hell with all this lovey dovey oprah hug your children not smack them method.

[Syme]

I remember getting my ass beat when I was a kid and everyone I meet tells me that I am a perfect gentleman and I was thoroughly taught manners. So to a certain extent, parents should be able to discipline their kids in a physical manner. Most of the people my age that weren't raised the same way are selfish pricks(most of the time anyways). My little brother was never given the same treatment and now he abuses drugs and alcohol. I understand that not everyone who is given this sorta discipline ends up being proper, but the worlds going to hell with all this lovey dovey oprah hug your children not smack them method.

With all due respect, I'm going to guess that you have absolutely no meaningful evidence that bad behavior in children is caused by this "lovey dovey oprah method", and are just jumping to baseless conclusions on instinct, anecdote, blind guesswork, mimicry of currently popular tropes, or some combination.

[Nick2.1]

With all due respect, I'm going to guess that you have absolutely no meaningful evidence that bad behavior in children is caused by this "lovey dovey oprah method", and are just jumping to baseless conclusions on instinct, anecdote, blind guesswork, mimicry of currently popular tropes, or some combination.

Yeah cause every time I go to costco(or anywhere for that fact) and see horrible little children abusing their powers over their parents cause it isn't social acceptable to give them a love tap doesn't give me any hint. I've meet plenty of parents who keep telling me how they can't gain any control sometimes and when I mention spankings or whatever they get scared and talk about social services taking their children away if they did that.

[Syme]

Yeah cause every time I go to costco(or anywhere for that fact) and see horrible little children abusing their powers over their parents cause it isn't social acceptable to give them a love tap doesn't give me any hint. I've meet plenty of parents who keep telling me how they can't gain any control sometimes and when I mention spankings or whatever they get scared and talk about social services taking their children away if they did that.

Yep, anecdote, just as I suspected.

In order to draw meaningful conclusions about human behavior on a large scale, you need meaningful evidence, which is going to be produced by research in fields such as sociology, behavioral psychology, and so forth. In order to support the particular conclusion you are trying to advance here, you would need evidence establishing, or at least suggesting, a causal link between parents' willingness to slap/smack their children, and good behavior. It isn't enough to just say "When I'm in costco I see kids acting horrid and I conclude that it's because their parents won't smack them". That's baseless conjecture. You are presuming, without reason, that the poor behavior of the kids is a result of their parents' unwillingness to smack them, and could be rectified if that unwillingness went away.

[Nick2.1]

Yep, anecdote, just as I suspected.

In order to draw meaningful conclusions about human behavior on a large scale, you need meaningful evidence, which is going to be produced by research in fields such as sociology, behavioral psychology, and so forth. In order to support the particular conclusion you are trying to advance here, you would need evidence establishing, or at least suggesting, a causal link between parents' willingness to slap/smack their children, and good behavior. It isn't enough to just say "When I'm in costco I see kids acting horrid and I conclude that it's because their parents won't smack them". That's baseless conjecture. You are presuming, without reason, that the poor behavior of the kids is a result of their parents' unwillingness to smack them, and could be rectified if that unwillingness went away.

Not unwillingness, if you are unwilling to discipline your kids in anyway, then in my opinion you aren't strong enough to be a parent. Social acceptability is what I'm looking for. Some people don't think it's ok, but I don't think it is any of their business. I don't condone abuse at all, there is a fine line you can cross when trying to raise you kids with that method. If you want to raise your child with verbal rather than physical discipline, that is up to you, but I believe that it should be acceptable either way.

[sycld]

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic. Also, parenting isn't just the woman's concern like abortion is (I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about).

Yes, I really meant more as a couple to choose whether or not to abort the child.

Similarly, many more parents probably choose not to use corporal punishment or any parenting technique that would even in theory need protection from such an amendment, whether or not such protection is actually needed.

Likewise, many women and couples want the option to abort their pregnancies even if they never find themselves needing to recourse to it.