Based on the necessity of laws being consistent.
I didn't realize that was intended to be the answer to the question earlier.
Also, we are not talking about generalized physical harm...
That's what I've been saying. The thread is specifically about spanking, but all you initially wrote was, "As long as it is illegal to physically harm adults...". This is the wording which threw me.
Your second statement reflects my point: Laws need to be consistent. This implies consistency in time, object and generalized in offense. Just as there is no specific law against causing harm by a left hand uppercut or with a 2 foot branch of oak, we don't outlaw spanking specifically, we outlaw causing physical harm.
I never stated there is a specific law against spanking. The law in practice, however, does not categorically ban physical harm either.
I am not intimately familiar with the penal codes in other countries, however I hardly believes it differs substantially from the one in my country:
Penal code §228: "Any person who commits violence against the person of another or otherwise assails him bodily (...) is guilty of assault"
The broader body of law will be determined by defences for the act, definitions, court rulings and other sections of law providing exemptions or protections against legal action, which is also common. things such as self-defence, medical practice, and yeah, disciplining children often have their own sections in body of law.
According to the article, Kansas already allowed such physical disciplinary action already, and this law merely clarifies the limits.
Canada is similar.
I actually do not agree with that law, but I couldn't just wave it away with 'physical harm'. The Supreme Court is already aware some harm occurs and I would have to argue against the specific problems with the exemption the law provides.
Correction of child by force
43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
Well, in the vast majority of the world which has civil law, judges don't interpret laws to any great extent.
@ kris feenstra:
I don't know if you have kids or not, but if you do, please tell me when is the last time your child got into your lap snuggled with you and said: "I love you, please spank me."
It doesn't happen and never will. Children responded best to love not pain.
People who strike their children have just been to lazy to learn how to be good parents, they try to make excuses to the rest of us to get a free pass to continue to be lousy parents.
I can't really make sense of this post. Is it because I used the word 'consent'?
Having trouble making sense of the world around you...maybe a spanking would help...as a matter of argument I am sure it would.
I as the authority figure here I will make you understand by causing you pain, you will in turn learn this wonderful method of teaching, which will in time lead you to teach other weaker individuals in the same way.
Isn't parenting from ignorance fun?
Kris, there are an abundant number of well written books in your local library on this subject. The educated portion of our society has come to understand that causing children pain results in negative results not positive ones.
Rational intelligent parents have learned a better method then the spanking method their ignorant parents used on them.
We're trying to build a better world here Kris, get on board, the train's leaving the station and you don't want to be left behind.
It ain't about you, it's about the content of your posts.