|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD
(1/22/2007)
Anti-Spank Movement Gets Louder
If you thought a kid at the end of a spanking could be loud, wait until you hear the anti-spank movement and the results they will most surely give us all to bear. This movement has already given us more blood, pain and anguish than one could ever suppose was possible at the hands of our children. Why can't they see the reality of it all? We are talking "spankings" and not beatings. Keep that in mind. There are children that will readily respond to the disapproval of a parent or person in authority. Not that this always mean that this response is representative of health and well-being either. Nevertheless, just because there are some children such as this, does not mean that all are. Some children must experience a "reason" not to do something they really want to do. After all, children act on impulse and a need for immediate gratification. They do not stop and weigh the possible consequences of their actions. How could they? They are just learning about the world around them and the relationship of specific acts to specific outcomes. (Cause & effect.) I would rather see a child's hand smacked for attempting to stick something into an electrical plug, than for the child to stick something in there and be seriously injured or killed. The smacked hand, after all, is giving them a consequence that hurts feelings more than anything and stings a little at most. A consequence to deter them, when they can't readily deter themselves. A learning experience rather than a death sentence waiting to happen. Here's a quote from "Calif. Lawmaker Seeks Ban on Spanking" , ""I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?" I'd be interested in knowing how we got from the topic of "spanking" to "beating" a child. (Those are entirely two different topics.) And just who is trying to argue it is okay to spank a newborn? That's going over the edge and implying a falsehood. Implying that parents who believe in spanking, as an option to prevent inappropriate behavior, are automatically child abusers with no common sense. However, it is suddenly okay to whip on a four year old? Ever seen one of them out of control? They can put one heck of a big hurt on an adult. What kinda hurt might they put on a fellow child that happens to cross their path? Children need to learn that there are boundaries and consequences for crossing them. There has to be a reason for them to stop when they haven't developed enough in the "self-growth" category to stop themselves. Some children need that fear of a spanking or swat to keep them from crossing over and doing what they know they shouldn't. And that is just it... Often, children get swatted at a young age and figure it out... when parents say, "No"... they mean "no"! "No" with that certain tone means to either stop or else. The child decides they will listen and that is how life goes on -- with the kid thinking twice when threatened with the consequence, until the child begins to rationalize the consequences him/herself and figuring out they rather act in a fashion they have learned to be of a positive nature with positive rewards. Waiting until four years old to begin correcting a child is a very dangerous thing. I love how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is reported as saying he and his wife did not spank their children and instead used alternative methods, only for him to be quoted as saying, "They hate that much more than getting spanked." How would he know? Without the comparison, he can't know. So, if he never spanked his children -- he can only assume -- and that is not fair to impose that assumption on all others that might have tried various methods of teaching their children to behave in a positive fashion and found that spanking is what got the attention and therefore the child headed on the right direction. People who are prone to be abusers are going to be abusers no matter what laws are in place. On the other hand, to put laws into place that prevent people from raising their children as they rightfully see fit, is nothing more than "like" creating a world with test tube babies raised in a nursery and never exposed to their own parents' heritage, individual beliefs and guidance, or anything beyond a clone of one belief and being. Parents have the best clues and evidence of what works for their specific children. Who are these people, such as Lieber, to second guess and make decisions as thought one sizes fits all??? As children have been "allowed" to break the law, have abortions (without parental consent & knowledge), defy their parents' rules, run away from home, and avoid consequences -- so has the violent crime rate increased at their hands. Also quite interesting is when parents are not allowed to raise their own children, but then held accountable for the actions that result from the interference of others. This society needs to get it's common sense back! As Forrest Gump would say, "That's about all I can say about that."
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist
|
|
||
