Hacker News Reader

Comment by naasking | Hacker News Reader

> How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents.

1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselves, so a parenting course won't fix that.

2. You're basically turning what is normally considered an innate human right into a privilege for which you need to earn a license. This invites all kinds of abuse (only the right kinds of people get this license!).

View on HN

>we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that

Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools!

Even the very basics are not accepted as fact by many.

> Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools!

The effects of corporal punishment are small compared to the effects of molestation and physical abuse. If corporal punishment were our only "issue", we'd be much better off. I wouldn't even classify this under "the very basics".

What are you saying here?

Corporal punishment is physical and psychological abuse. It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence.

There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse. Maybe there is a scale of it but it is abuse.

> It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence

Are you suggesting that judging your child's actions as wrong is psychological abuse?

> There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse.

That's incorrect, and the legal precedent has been clear on the legality of spanking and the distinction from abuse:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/disc-abuse/

> Are you suggesting that judging your child's actions as wrong is psychological abuse?

Nobody said that. We are saying that corporal punishment is physical abuse.

> the legal precedent has been clear on the legality of spanking and the distinction from abuse

An action does not need to be illegal in all areas (or illegal at all) to be a form of abuse. Corporal punishment causes negative emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes in children regardless of whether it is used in an area where it is legal or illegal. It is physical abuse and a poor method of parenting that is detrimental to the children's long-term welfare.

> Lifetime spanking/slapping was independently associated with increased odds of mental health disorders, physical health conditions, and defiant behaviors in adolescence after adjusting for childhood adversities and child maltreatment (unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.29 to 2.19).

> These findings suggest that lifetime spanking/slapping is uniquely associated with harmful mental, physical, and behavioral outcomes in adolescence, and efforts should focus on its prevention.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07067437211000...

I notice you consistently take data that says that lifetime physical discipline can be detrimental to welfare, and then claim that all physical discipline, no matter how infrequent, is physical abuse that is detrimental to welfare. One does not follow the other.

The data shows that the use of physical discipline is independently associated with negative emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes. If there are any studies of the same quality that show otherwise, go ahead and post them. Otherwise, your argument is just like saying that infrequent lead exposure may be beneficial because studies only focus on the negative effects of lifetime lead exposure.

> Otherwise, your argument is just like saying that infrequent lead exposure may be beneficial because studies only focus on the negative effects of lifetime lead exposure.

No, it's saying that infrequent lead exposure is not as harmful as most think, and certainly not as harmful as other environmental pollutants that are more pervasive.

Corporal punishment is much more pervasive than molestation and rape, which is why it is being highlighted as a major problem. Lead exposure is actually more harmful than most people think, just like corporal punishment.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/30/one-in-t...

> Are you suggesting that judging your child's actions as wrong is psychological abuse?

How is that judgement communicated? Without that information the question is incomplete.

> The effects of corporal punishment are small compared to the effects of molestation and physical abuse.

That even worse abuses such as molestation, rape, and murder exist is not a justification for corporal punishment (physical discipline), which has been shown to cause negative emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes in children. Corporal punishment is a form of physical abuse, considering these negative outcomes.

> The Resolution on Physical Discipline of Children By Parents, adopted by APA’s Council of Representatives in February, relies on strong and sophisticated longitudinal research that finds physical discipline does not improve behavior and can lead to emotional, behavioral and academic problems over time, even after race, gender and family socioeconomic status have been statistically controlled.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/05/physical-discipline

> That even worse abuses such as molestation, rape, and murder exist is not a justification for corporal punishment (physical discipline)

Fortunately, that's not the argument I made.

Is childbirth an innate human right? Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

> Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

That question is incoherent.

It's a perfectly coherent question! I'd kindly ask that you try to comply with Hacker News's guidelines about engaging in kind dialogue, and specifically the line "please don't post shallow dismissals".

Here's what I consider to be a simpler question to answer: do you think people have the right to give birth to a child whose existence would be only horrible, endless suffering before eventually succumbing to death?

This isn't just a hypothetical: people tend to agree that a parents who are at high chance of birthing a child with a terrible genetic disease probably shouldn't take that risk (or, at least, should protect against it with some preimplantation genetic testing).

But everyone suffers at least a little bit at some point in their life. If you don't think people have a right to birth children whose lives would be pure suffering, but you do think people have a right to birth children who would suffer at least a little bit in their lives, then how do you justify one but not the other? Is there some threshold amount of misery which you think is okay to inflict on someone without their consent?

There may be some other moral framework or argument which articulately justifies this, and I'm genuinely curious to see if someone has come up with an interesting answer to the question.

Pretty much.

Unless you've worked out how to obtain consent from someone that doesn't exist either we create kids without their consent or society ends.

Inability to obtain consent does not imply consent.

Do you consider the continuation of our society to be more important than respecting consent?

>Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

Is this satire?

It's a legitimate question! Many people wish they had never been born. What right do you have to force such a person into existence without their consent?

In the absence of someone's ability to give consent - ie. Informed consent in medical terms- the responsibility is assumed by the parents or guardian.

Since an infant or fetus is unable to provide consent, why would you think a parent is incapable of doing so?

This is a baffling line of thought to me.

2 is tricky because we live in a society where the group is responsible for an individuals bad parenting decisions.

Our options are to keep creating support programs to cover for bad parenting (not nearly as effective as good parents) or to stop “bad” parents from having kids (not super moral).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com