Corporal Punishment

The set up: I recently sent my wife an interesting article on the Biblical justification for spanking. She posted it on Facebook. A family member of mine responded, saying more than once that all spanking is abuse and ought to be outlawed. The following is my response.

You say that all corporal punishment is abuse, and therefore ought to be outlawed. While you’ve already seen a strong Biblical argument for the practice, here are some completely secular arguments for why you are wrong to make such a broad statement.

If we look at Webster’s definition of abuse (a verb, in this context), the applicable meaning is “to use so as to injure or damage: Maltreat”. It can also mean to “attack with words” (aka verbal abuse), and to use something excessively. Clearly one condition of abuse is the infliction of damage upon the victim, physical or mental. I take it this is your justification for your position. There is more to the story, however.

Another condition presents itself if we look into the connotation of the word. Taking a glance at the thesaurus, words that are listed as “related” include: violate, torture, persecute, torment, and others. The antonyms (or opposites) include: cherish, nurture, coddle, and favor. Something most of these words have in common is intent.

Simply causing damage is not enough. For example, if I am to administer CPR to a person I will most likely break many of their ribs. If we take your condition of abuse, then I am guilty of a crime and ought to be jailed. If the second condition is taken into account, however, we can see that my actions, while they did damage the person physically, were intended to aid them, and therefore do not qualify.

Let’s bring this all back to corporal punishment. The questions are: Does it harm the child (a very different thing from simply hurting them), and what is the intent behind it.
We will start by accepting that anyone who were to beat a child (or anyone else, for that matter) with the intent of causing damage and hurting them is abusing them and deserves to be punished.

For the majority of parents this is not the case. When I spank my daughters, I do so because they have misbehaved. The intent is not to cause pain, per se. The intent is to teach them that what they did was wrong, to prevent wrong actions in the future, and to instill in them discipline and virtue. The pain is merely a tool towards that end.

Secondly, when properly administered, there is no lasting physical harm. Depending on the child bruises may or may not form. Some people bruise more easily than others. Any and all such bruises fade quickly, however, and there is no lasting damage done. There could be more of an argument made for the mental repercussions. Even here, though, the argument falls short. Any and every form of discipline will “damage” the child mentally. Even the tame “time out” method is intended to cause social stigma and isolation.

In conclusion: Abuse requires both physical harm and ill intent. While corporal punishment can satisfy these conditions, it does not necessarily satisfy them. Properly administered, it satisfies neither.

Let’s take our discussion one step further: What of not disciplining a child at all, enough, or consistently? Here we see one of the most insidious and prevalent forms of child abuse. It satisfies both conditions.

Firstly, harm. The purpose of parenting is to train children up to be well adjusted functioning members of society. To do this you must instill certain qualities, among them discipline and integrity. Children do not possess these virtues out of the womb. They are, by nature, unruly, dishonest, and self centered. Show me the child who was well behaved and courteous from birth, and I will show you the baby Jesus. Aside from Him, it has never happened in the history of humankind. Anyone else who possesses these qualities learned them from somewhere. Being self centered, unless corrected, the child will act in a way that pleases itself. They are only convinced to act otherwise when doing so causes an unpleasant event. Whether that event be a spanking, a time out, the loss of privilege, or something else is irrelevant.

By not doing what is necessary to give the child the values it requires to succeed in life, the lazy parent has caused permanent and lasting harm to the child’s potential.

It should be noted that positive reinforcement also plays a role. I challenge you to take a toddler who routinely spits at their mother, or hits other children, and simply wait for him to do the right thing so you can praise him. Then take another toddler, and when he hits his fellow playmate, spank him. Then praise him when he doesn’t do it next time. Anecdotally it is obvious that you need both the carrot and the stick.

What of intent? Surely the parent who doesn’t discipline their child only wants them to be happy. Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! The reason parents do not discipline their children is simple, and takes only three words: They are lazy.

Disciplining is tough. It is tiring. It is unpleasant. It is far easier to simply give them what they want, or carry them all day, or spoil them. It is far easier not to do the tough thing, and to discipline your children. The easy way is often the wrong way, and such is the case here. If a parent loves their child, and wants the best for them, they will put aside their own wants and do what is right for them, even when such actions are not pleasant. The parent who does not love their child will take the easy way out. The results can be seen in the behavior of their children.

In conclusion: A lack of discipline prevents children from growing into productive adults, and harms them permanently. It also displays a supreme laziness on behalf of parents. Discipline is an act of love.

If my words have offended anyone, then I regret the offense, but not the position I take. I will continue to discipline my children the way that I see fit, because I love them. Should the most effective forms of discipline become outlawed, then I suppose I should become criminal, because I love my children too much to stop.