Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

"You" does not imply you, unless I quote a statement you made. "Him" is generally speaking for "child" I see so much how it ties to a poll on here that says "As a leader would it be better to be feared or respected?" Same thing with parent and their children. The parents are the leaders, and the citizens are the children. Now would you rather get beat, turn out good just because your parent want you to, and fear your parents; or would you like to have communication, turn out good because of what you learn, and respect your parent? Communication is key. Violence is not. Sure what you're preaching that in the long run a child will be good, but it was through fear that was accomplished, which of course will not sustain as he himself will do it. If I knew two friends: one that gets physical punishment and one that gets no physical punishment but some other form of punishment, and they both turns out good, without seeing their respective families, I would respect the kid whose parent didn't use physical punishment. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with this statement as well. http://www.debate.org... "One has to understand that physical discipline is to be used differently depending on the child's age, abilities and needs. " We're not asking or trying to come to conclusion on weather or not "one has to understand that physical discipline is to be used differently depending on the child's age." It's contrary to your standing on that they should have the right to discipline their child. But now you want to tell them to what limits? Once you say "parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically", you ultimately give them the power to discipline them however they want. But if we say that parents are not allow to discipline their children physically, they will not be able to discipline their children to many limits, which is much better than saying they are allow to. It's funny, so are you saying that the child should tell the mother, "hey I'm 9, you have to discipline me differently because of this age." "Or that I'm 16, so you cannot hit me like that!" Let me point this out, disciplining a child or children (anyone under 18) has no limits, and once you say parents should have the right to discipline their child, its whatever they feel like doing. And because parents are allow, some don't think twice or anger takes hold of them in disciplining their children, which leads to harms. Child by definition is anyone under 18, and because parents are allow to discipline their children and feels as if they can discipline them anyway they want, than they go somewhere wrong, which you would call abuse and will arrest the parent. But it wouldn't have happened in the first place if we hadn't allowed it. Knowing that some parents do not use "physical discipline differently depending on the child's age, abilities, and needs", would you agree that we should not allow it? Plus in your previous argument you stated "I grew up getting spanked with a wooden spoon, a belt and the traditional hand spanking," now I do not know how old you were, but did your parents consider their physical discipline based on your age? Because we do not know how parents are going to discipline their children, and because children are developing so they'll make mistakes, and knowing that parents should be wise enough to know that their kids do not think as critically as them, while also acknowledging that parents can go wrong in physically disciplining their children, they should not be allow to discipline them, weather its for good or bad, small or big. According to Slate.com, "Physical discipline doesn't work over the long run, it has bad side effects, and mild punishment often becomes more severe over time. Opponents of corporal punishment also advance moral and legal arguments. If you hit another adult you can be arrested and sued, after all, so shouldn't our smallest, weakest citizens have a right to equal or even more-than-equal protection under the law?" Before I move on to my other points, I'm not saying we should let kids go crazy. But "you reap what you sow." There's much better way to show love to a child, there is so much way you can work in curbing their bad attitudes; but if you want to preach violence and if you want to use violence as a means to discipline a child, you only teaches him there's no alternative. You're his best teacher, what he sees you do in the home, is probably what he's going to carry outside. According to "The Natural Child Project" " It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill." Also, do unto those as you will want to do unto you. How about instead of hitting, you "listen and communicate" for once, because that child has so much to say. But because you're the adult, you'll think you have the final say, and what you say is what's done. How about you cherish "cooperation and understanding", instead of you always playing the big boss. The child has a voice too. When a child is misbehaving "the child is simply responding in the only way he can, given his age and experience, to neglect of basic needs. Among these needs are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and sufficient freedom to explore the world around him. But his greatest need is for his parents' undivided attention." Knowing all this, parents should not discipline their children, and by not getting physically discipline, children too than have a voice and protection from harm, as everyone deserves. According to "The Natural Child Project" "Ten reason not to hit a child" (which I'm not going to list all), through extensive research and the ban of corporal punishment by 37 countries, Punishment distracts the child from learning how to resolve conflict in an effective and humane way. What are we trying to teach a child when we only teaches him that beating him is the only way to resolve the conflict. It is not effective, it's taking the easy way out. For the most part of that child life, they'll only know that they were brought up by physical punishment as a means to change their bad ways. Because you have brought up a child punishing him physically, and you thinking that it was a good form of punishment, your child will go on physically punishing his children, thinking that it works because of what his parents did to him. According to CNN, one of the reason United States and parents in the United States still thinks physical punishment is okay and think it's a means to curb a child bad behavior, is because it has been passed on for generations. And what you taught your child, is what he's going to carry on, and his child is going to carry on. When are we ever going to break this cycle. But you support " But yes, parents do have the right to discipline their children physically and it should stay that way." It's advocates like you whom will hinder a new way in thinking. It's time to put the old guard to rest. Is it not about that we bring about change? We need change and we need it now! " Physical punishment gives the dangerous and unfair message that "might makes right", that it is permissible to hurt someone else, provided they are smaller and less powerful than you are" If we want to teach love, let's teach it through communication, cooperation, and understanding, not through violence. If we want to raise a child right from wrong, lets do so without beating them. After all, they are still kids, they are still growing up. They might not know what they are doing, and might be influence by others, as I myself once was, but just because they did wrong, does not mean it should be corrected through beating. http://www.naturalchild.org... http://www.slate.com...