Assessment of Parental Ability Should Be Compulsive For All Expectant Parents

My opponent points out there disapprovement of physical punishment, but claims to accept that use of the method is a parental choice. But for the laws that define what counts as child abuse this remains very important. For the moment, if you dip your kids feet in boiling water as a punishment it counted as child abuse and the child protective services will be on your case if your reported, But if you're disciplinary methods are spanking the child's rear in, it is not considered child abuse. Though my opponent would be at peace with this arrangement of what physical punishment is child abuse and what is not many would try pushing the line further to include spanking as an unacceptable discipline. Who is it that should decide that spanking you kid is psychological abuse or not, who keeps these new laws my opponent proposes from threatening to take away children from those that use physical punishment in its milder forms? I know my opponent says that she is not for taking the children away even in the undeniably bad cases, and I agree on that, but when people simply don't have it as a psychological problem, they simply believe it the right parenting method, the classes they go to are not going to make changes. When we create a board that assess the parents and laws that determine the standard for assessment the push for all physical discipline to qualify as abuse will come, even if not from my opponent. What my opponent might try to propose to protect the non-sociopath parents from laws meant for the true sociopathic ones is that degree's of physical punishment will be protected from causing the parents to be held accountable. This will lead to the use of Loki's Gambit to either protect the sociopath parent, or punish the non-sociopath. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager My opponent gives the example of Josef Fritzl. If we stop and consider that mans scenario we might see how he would not be stopped by these laws even if they included all physical abuse without question. It seems people did not even know he had children. This might be incorrect though, my opponent didn't give a source for me to read more on its details, but the knowledge of his 8 children's existence is how it comes off. So perhaps we can rest assured these laws would catch Josef before he first conceives (if we grant they would allow us know if he does at all with a women) that the assessing board would recognize his psychological problems in a background check. But consider Seung Hui Cho, the gunman in the VT massacre, when he purchased his guns that he would later use for killing the 32 Hokie's, the gun salesmen found no problem in his background check. http://www.cbsnews.com... though same people with mental problems can be recognized from analysis, not all are, they in fact can come off as a "clean cut young man". It took the full undivided attention of the state to figure out he had psychological problems. And you are not going to get that full attention for these assessment boards before it becomes a problem. Our government has simply proved incapable of scrutinizing the mental stability of individuals already in the case of gun permits. Why should we expect better when granting 'children permits'. Last of all, considering the resolution mentions we are talking about 'expectant' parents, where the child is already conceived, and my opponent speaks in round one of hoping to catch the bad cases before they start when the child is not yet born, I must ask what happens when a couple or single parent fail the assessment at this stage? You obviously do not hope to stop people from conceiving in the first place, so that leaves two solutions that I can think of, taking away the child at birth to some orphanage, or abortion. If your idea is abortion then this debate is in danger of turning over that point, and the voters may simply ignore the resolution and vote based on there stance on abortion. I will try to keep this debate from turning into being over government imposed abortions, but since the resolution does not require for this debate we accept that solution as okay as a given, I will not.