California spanking ban shot down! What do you think about the revised version?

Question

I still will vote it down. If you want to take out the section which makes it illegal to use a implement, and define what a "deadly weapon" is fine, everything else I agree with. I know parents who use paddles, and belts. They are doing a fine job, with wonderfully behaved children. I will not support a bill which limits their ability to parent. I also won't support a bill which involves more government intrusion in our lives. We have a law on the books which defines abuse as permanent marks left (bruises, welts, blisters) other then temporary redness. This is A-OK by me, and the way the law should stay.

I will try and find a link, however I heard this bill was motivated by a man who's 15 month old daughter was killed by a babysitter, who shook her to death. Now really, what does that have to do with parental controlled spanking???? Please someone answer me that.

I agree with Randy Thomasson (bottom of page)

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16765731.htm?source=rss

Here is the revised bill in full.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0751-0800/ab_755_bill_20070222_introduced.html

Answer 1

I agree w you 100% - I have worked in the child protective field and I have yet to come across a "death by spanking" case. I also agree parents are loosing the ability to decide how they want to raise their children and the gov't needs to back off!
As someone who has worked w CPS I also wondered how CA was going to enforce this rule - children under 3 don't talk very much and aren't likely to call 911 after being spanked - to me it just looked like the legislators trying to convince us "little folks" that they care.

Answer 2

I give mine a swat on the tush when they really need it. My son is 15 my daughter is 6 , I have spanked then less then 5 times each. I just dont have to , however I see nothing wrong with a swat on the butt....

There is a big difference between a swat on the bottom, or being abused. I have neer used a paddle. I would not object to them using a small paddle as long as its on the butt, however some parents would hit far too hard.

If its hurts your hand, then your spanking too hard. A swat should not leave a mark or welts. A child under 4 a tap with your hand on theirs is enough followed by "no no".

I have heard parents Cuss at their children and call them names which sickens me. I was as a child and I can tell you I would have rather them beat me then down talk me. The hurt is much deeper and lasts so much longer.

Answer 3

As someone that was an abused child I have mixed feelings on this one. I think we have enough legislation to define parental abuse at the moment, but I also cringe at the thought of another child going through what I did. Will I spank? Maybe, depends on what the cause is. Will I beat my child? Not if I can help it, and if I can't I will remove myself from their lives until I can.
All of that said, I think we need to, as a group, concentrate more on enforcing the laws we DO have. Until we can do that, more legislation is just a whisper in a scream. How in the world can you say what we have is not enough if you haven't proven it isn't?
More interference in our freedoms (and we do NOT have the freedom to abuse anyone if we live in the US!) is not going to help an already abyssimal situation.
To all those that are going to point out that spanking is not abuse, I beg you to ask my mother if she abused me when she 'spanked' me with a bread board 1" thick and only stopped beating me with it when it broke, or ask my father who 'spanked' me with one of those nifty orange, heavy duty extention cords, while I was in the shower. They would both say no, they did not abuse me, they spanked me. It's in the eye of the beholder in some instances. You and I may know what spanking is, but it could be something totally different to another person, like my parents who did not get that spanking should be just a swat on the bottom to gain attention.

Answer 4

I totally agree. There is a difference between parenting and abusing.

These days, the only way you are allowed to punish your children is with a "time out".

Back in my day if I got a time out, I'd just get up and do the same thing later. But if I got a spanking, let me tell you, I thought twice before doing it again. Sometimes doing it and other times not.

Now had I gotten the belt, I'd NEVER repeat the same instance that led to that belt.

I grew up on spankings and I turned out ok. I'm not damaged in any way from it.

Answer 5

Children need to be disciplined, but only up to the age of 10 for spankings. After that, grounding, and loss of privileges work just fine. In no way does the government have a right to tell a parent that they cannot spank their child. If done out of love, and not anger, spankings are actually good for the rearing of children.

Answer 6

sure, it would. I thoroughly agree and would comply, in simple terms for this reason and this reason on my own: "by regulation you would have a confusing time differentiating between a to blame discern who thinks about parenting and then hits and one which does no longer," Lieber said. "to blame moms and dads ought to renounce the privilege to bodily discipline their toddlers for the sake of protecting toddlers that are not being hit once in a blue moon or in a ordinary way, yet are truly being hit each day, many circumstances an afternoon." i wish it really is exceeded in california (notwithstanding they have shocked me lately with passing prop 8) because if it ought to't pass there, it ought to't pass everywhere. i'm in ny, i'd actually vote for that regulation. technically, will the authorities be in a position to restrict spanking? no, it is going to nevertheless be performed in the back of closed doors, like unlawful drugs and ingesting below 21 etc. notwithstanding the article is so genuine -- "yet for Lieber, who hears grievance each day from prosecutors, judges and pediatricians that toddlers are being overwhelmed and their moms and dads have become off on a technicality, the regulation would not even come on the point of being sufficient." some moms and dads are abusers and are allowed to proceed to attempt this because it really is not any longer unlawful to spank. if it were, the abusers will be in a position to be punished and not at all enable off -- some human beings imagine it really is o.k. to spank on the bottom if a baby is in probability, some human beings imagine it really is o.k. to spank to discipline regularly, some human beings imagine it really is o.k. to hit with products, some human beings imagine it really is o.k. to hit with products regularly. all of that is 'ok' because it really is criminal to spank your toddlers, proper? the position is the line drawn? I hate spanking and that i'll not at all do it. i became not at all spanked and that i'm no longer and became no longer a spoiled little brat operating round nor became I disrespectful to my moms and dads. being spanked does no longer make a baby respectful.

Answer 7

It's a waste of taxpayer time! There are already laws about that.

She claims that things like public not liking the idea and the parody on TV had nothing to do with her decision to drop the bill - how can you tell when the CA legislators are lieing? listen to them talk - our reps are a disgrace!

Answer 8

The existing laws are sufficient. The proposed laws are way too intrusive into people's personal lives. Nobody supports child abuse, but I can't support government regulation of how we run our households.

Answer 9

I totally agree. Spanking is not the best tool in the world to use, and it should only be used when all other methods have failed, but we do not need any more government intrusion into our lives. The people who support spanking bans don't want well-behaved, disciplined children.

Answer 10

honestly, i think there are better ways of disciplining a child, and i will NEVER hit my daughter. but there really isnt a way for the government to enforce a spanking law unless if it is done in public, i mean what are they going to do, put cameras in everybodys house?