Opinions on: Smacking; Commercial Surrogacy.

[Halo]

I'm curious about general opinions on two issues:
1. Smacking children (fairly self-explanatory.)
2. Fertility tourism (http://www.debatingmatters.com/topicguides/topicguide/fertility_tourism/.)

I'm participating in debates about these two topics, and have been doing some background reading. I've formulated some of my own ideas on them, and I'm curious to see how others feel about them.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

1) smachking children. . . "No. . . smack them on the ass, repeatedly if necessary. Don't hit the face, even with an open hand."
2) fertility tourism "I never thought about it".

[Gwazi Magnum]

Normally I'd go on a good amount on my views/opinions.

But this is unlikely when the question asked is so brief, and even more unlikely when I'm tired.
This is both, so this is a rare case I'll keep this short(ish).

1) Against it, fully. If anyone else is punished with violence we call it assault and abuse, the use on children should be viewed no differently.
Plus it teaches them nothing outside of "Try not to do this, when they're around". If it ever actually causes a child to feel bad about what they did and stop, that's more a case of that child realizing they hurt their parents and wanting to stop. Which they could of realized by being told that they did rather than by being hit over it.

2) Never thought about it. Nor heard of that term for it before so I had to look it up quickly.
Basically, as long as it's safe treatment I see no issues in the practice of going to another country for treatment of any kind.

Me saying if it's a good choice or a bad choice though would be a case by case analysis on what they are working on, why they are working on it and why are they leaving the country for it.

[Phoenix]

1.) I'm pro-physical discipline. I believe children don't understand the social and emotional repercussions of their actions and that pain is the quickest but also most directly effective way of curbing any socially-unwanted behavior. Of course, there needs to be regulation of this method. Also, there needs to be a strong connection with the parents. If the child does not respect the parent(s) then they will not respect the method of discipline. But that goes for any form of punishment. I was hit as a child and had a strong relationship with my parents. When they hit me I felt guilt more often than pain. This strike to the child should be for the shock value, not the pain value. In my early childhood I got the wooden spoon, which was very painful. I know quite a few other people my age that received similar treatment. However, I believe that that is a bit radical. Perhaps a few times will do the trick for the right "crimes." As for smacking the cheek (either one), it was more of a jolt of unwanted contact coming from someone who I looked to provide me comfort and love. When an opposite result was provided due to my inappropriate behavior, I realized I was doing something wrong without being taken aside and given a lecture. Often I knew that the behavior was inappropriate and unacceptable and acted against my sense of self-discipline. Perhaps I was in a fit of hightened emotions and not behaving properly because of it. Regardless of the cause, it brought me to the conclusion that I was behaving inappropriately and to reconsider my actions.
These punishments don't work when the child lacks empathy for others or respect for their parents. So the effectiveness of this punishment, I believe, directly correlates to the parenting method as well as the psychology of the child.

2.) Inherently dangerous when traveling to a possibly illegitimate doctor who conducts possibly unsafe procedures. I don't know whether to be apathetic to their ignorance over the danger or impressed with their initiative to attain what they want. Overall, I'm indifferent upon this topic and believe people will seek out what they will when they are dissatisfied with their current state of being. It is unethical for the doctors to not disclose all possible outcomes of any and all treatments they provide. However, the individual seeking treatment might also not fully realize what these consequences may fully entail and might be so desperate as to ignore them. If that is the case, then I hold no sympathy. I also don't believe it to be the country's place to place a cap on human reproduction. If they want to bury themselves in their own people, so be it.
To label "ethical or unethical" upon this would be counter-productive and has too many layers with which to do so effectively. Someone wishing to bear children through any means isn't inherently "unethical," but certainly brings about unethical behaviors, however ignorant.

Overall, it's not entirely productive to discuss the ethics of these topics without both sides being open to discussion. I understand that this is for a debate and that each side shall have their opposing yet (hopefully) legitimate proofs. It's also difficult for a pro/con side to actually take the consideration of the other when forced/conditioned to see only one side. I wish you luck on your debates.

[mdk]

Violence has its place in society, and a responsible, measured disciplinary system is one of those places. That said leave it between kids and their parents -- we don't need to bring spankings into a compulsory education. Families don't need to be boxed into a corner over this, regardless of which corner you're talking about.

[Goldmarble]

Smacking: Idealistic about it. A parent should only have to use spanking as a last resort, for a child who commits an egregious error of judgement. No tools should ever be used, other than the open palm of the parent's hand. Supplemented with communication as to why, and how the action, or actions the child undertook were wrong. 3 slaps upside the ass should be maximum penalty. One should suffice for 99% of any time physical force is deemed necessary.
I do not agree with the use of belts, spoons, paddles, or spanking "sessions." To me, this is abuse.

Fertility Tourism? I give utterly no fucks about. I personally think it is silly to give a shit about something like this: It's other people's lives, other people's bodies, and has no effect on anyone, but them.

[Halo]

Magic Magnum said
Normally I'd go on a good amount on my views/opinions.But this is unlikely when the question asked is so brief, and even more unlikely when I'm tired.This is both, so this is a rare case I'll keep this short(ish). 1) Against it, fully. If anyone else is punished with violence we call it assault and abuse, the use on children should be viewed no differently.Plus it teaches them nothing outside of "Try not to do this, when they're around". If it ever actually causes a child to feel bad about what they did and stop, that's more a case of that child realizing they hurt their parents and wanting to stop. Which they could of realized by being told that they did rather than by being hit over it.2) Never thought about it. Nor heard of that term for it before so I had to look it up quickly.Basically, as long as it's safe treatment I see no issues in the practice of going to another country for treatment of any kind.Me saying if it's a good choice or a bad choice though would be a case by case analysis on what they are working on, why they are working on it and why are they leaving the country for it.

I kept the question brief as I need to be aware of all possible avenues of argument in order to best prepare for the debate. I wanted to see what people would say and what arguments they would form without being guided toward any specifics. Hence, I kept it brief and plain.

1. Do you not think that a coupling of punishment with an explanation of why punishment is necessary is a good way to reinforce the negative consequences of that action while simultaneously educating the child on the morality of their actions? (that's a very long clusterfuck of a sentence, hope it made sense.)
2. What about the exploitation of women in poor or developing countries for the purposes of commercial surrogacy?

mdk said
Violence has its place in society, and a responsible, measured disciplinary system is one of those places. That said leave it between kids and their parents -- we don't need to bring spankings into a compulsory education. Families don't need to be boxed into a corner over this, regardless of which corner you're talking about.

Is it not the job of society and the government to regulate the actions of parents to protect children, the most precious and vulnerable in society? Is it not our job to "box them into a corner", so to speak, by carefully and rigidly defining what is and is not acceptable?

Goldmarble said
Smacking: Idealistic about it. A parent should only have to use spanking as a last resort, for a child who commits an egregious error of judgement. No tools should ever be used, other than the open palm of the parent's hand. Supplemented with communication as to why, and how the action, or actions the child undertook were wrong. 3 slaps upside the ass should be maximum penalty. One should suffice for 99% of any time physical force is deemed necessary.I do not agree with the use of belts, spoons, paddles, or spanking "sessions." To me, this is abuse.Fertility Tourism? I give utterly no fucks about. I personally think it is silly to give a shit about something like this: It's other people's lives, other people's bodies, and has no effect on anyone, but them.

Smacking: Why do you draw the lines where you do? Should a parent who slaps 4 times be berated or punished? Should the punishment be the same for a parent who smacks four times as a parent who leaves cuts and black eyes? If not, again, where is the line drawn?
Fertility tourism: is it not our role to work as a society to protect those who are easily exploitable?

[Halo]

Phoenix said
1.) I'm pro-physical discipline. I believe children don't understand the social and emotional repercussions of their actions and that pain is the quickest but also most directly effective way of curbing any socially-unwanted behavior. Of course, there needs to be regulation of this method. Also, there needs to be a strong connection with the parents. If the child does not respect the parent(s) then they will not respect the method of discipline. But that goes for any form of punishment. I was hit as a child and had a strong relationship with my parents. When they hit me I felt guilt more often than pain. This strike to the child should be for the shock value, not the pain value. In my early childhood I got the wooden spoon, which was very painful. I know quite a few other people my age that received similar treatment. However, I believe that that is a bit radical. Perhaps a few times will do the trick for the right "crimes." As for smacking the cheek (either one), it was more of a jolt of unwanted contact coming from someone who I looked to provide me comfort and love. When an opposite result was provided due to my inappropriate behavior, I realized I was doing something wrong without being taken aside and given a lecture. Often I knew that the behavior was inappropriate and unacceptable and acted against my sense of self-discipline. Perhaps I was in a fit of hightened emotions and not behaving properly because of it. Regardless of the cause, it brought me to the conclusion that I was behaving inappropriately and to reconsider my actions. These punishments don't work when the child lacks empathy for others or respect for their parents. So the effectiveness of this punishment, I believe, directly correlates to the parenting method as well as the psychology of the child.2.) Inherently dangerous when traveling to a possibly illegitimate doctor who conducts possibly unsafe procedures. I don't know whether to be apathetic to their ignorance over the danger or impressed with their initiative to attain what they want. Overall, I'm indifferent upon this topic and believe people will seek out what they will when they are dissatisfied with their current state of being. It is unethical for the doctors to not disclose all possible outcomes of any and all treatments they provide. However, the individual seeking treatment might also not fully realize what these consequences may fully entail and might be so desperate as to ignore them. If that is the case, then I hold no sympathy. I also don't believe it to be the country's place to place a cap on human reproduction. If they want to bury themselves in their own people, so be it. To label "ethical or unethical" upon this would be counter-productive and has too many layers with which to do so effectively. Someone wishing to bear children through any means isn't inherently "unethical," but certainly brings about unethical behaviors, however ignorant.Overall, it's not entirely productive to discuss the ethics of these topics without both sides being open to discussion. I understand that this is for a debate and that each side shall have their opposing yet (hopefully) legitimate proofs. It's also difficult for a pro/con side to actually take the consideration of the other when forced/conditioned to see only one side. I wish you luck on your debates.

Do you not think that for some other children, receiving a shocking contact or show of violence from those they look to for love and comfort would instead sow mistrust and uncertainty? And, considering your conclusion on the matter, if one were to propose a ban on smacking, would you be opposed to it or for it? I am assuming, judging by your pronouncement of being pro-physical discipline, that you'd be opposed to it, in which case how does one ensure that it is being used in a safe and effective way rather than as abuse or even just on a child for whom it is ineffective due to either their psychology or the rest of their parents' parenting style?

Your view of fertility tourism is exceptionally balanced and incorporates ideas from both sides, so I can't ask you too many questions on it from either side's perspective. Thank you for responding, though.

[mdk]

halo said Is it not the job of society and the government to regulate the actions of parents to protect children, the most precious and vulnerable in society? Is it not our job to "box them into a corner", so to speak, by carefully and rigidly defining what is and is not acceptable?

Remember that you're asking a quasi-libertarian. No, generally speaking, it is not the government's job to protect children from their parents. There are exceptions to that, jesus, I know of more than one, but broadly, a home is a castle, a family is a unit, and Sam is not an Uncle. If a duty exists to protect children (I would certainly agree), then that duty is not to the government, but to each of us, the citizens, individually. Now I don't generally like it when someone starts an argument with 'Society as a whole needs _____,' but I'm going to break my rule -- the family unit is weak enough in our culture. We don't need another antagonist in the household, least of all one with a government mandate.

[Phoenix]

Halo said Do you not think that for some other children, receiving a shocking contact or show of violence from those they look to for love and comfort would instead sow mistrust and uncertainty?

Of course that is a possibility. It’s entirely situational. However, it still heavily (not completely) depends on the relationship between child and parent. Like any other disciplinary action, if it proves ineffective or traumatizing for the child then it must be changed.

Halo said And, considering your conclusion on the matter, if one were to propose a ban on smacking, would you be opposed to it or for it?

There is a law against corporal punishment as well as spanking. I am against the latter.

Halo said I am assuming, judging by your pronouncement of being pro-physical discipline, that you'd be opposed to it, in which case how does one ensure that it is being used in a safe and effective way rather than as abuse or even just on a child for whom it is ineffective due to either their psychology or the rest of their parents' parenting style?

There is no effective way to regulate this form of discipline without micro-managing the behaviors of others. I could go further and say that that is already a norm but I could also say that it’s a slippery slope to the corruptive control of the population. Adults should have the logic to understand the line between discipline and abuse, but we all know that that is not the case and that some have not learned the difference due to the improper application of said discipline. Overall, lack of education on the subject contributes to the issue.

Halo said Your view of fertility tourism is exceptionally balanced and incorporates ideas from both sides, so I can't ask you too many questions on it from either side's perspective. Thank you for responding, though.

Was I able to consider anything you haven’t yet considered? Just wondering if my opinion was helpful in any way.
You’re welcome. And I like discussions like these. ^^

[HeySeuss]

I don't really have an opinion on commercial surrogacy except to say, perhaps, that we need to avoid the perils of going over the top on eugenics in general when it comes to the frontiers that technology is going to open for us in reproduction. We don't need to use science to start creating classes of ubermensch. I'm just throwing it out there, I know it's only sort of related, but I like to speculate on the future of humanity -- so shoot me.

As to striking children, I tend to feel that a good dose of guilt and parental disappointment works better than hitting them. Just don't numb them to it by using them all the time, because it is a bit like spanking. Whack 'em too many times with the guilt, and they get bitter about it due to overexposure. If female and white, they'll bring home Rilla. If male, they'll find the female equivalent of Rilla, probably tattooed in all contravention of acceptability among WASPs. And then, oh the horror...

No, seriously, I am against striking children besides maybe a smack to the ass. But even then, I'm not sure about that.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Halo said
I kept the question brief as I need to be aware of all possible avenues of argument in order to best prepare for the debate. I wanted to see what people would say and what arguments they would form without being guided toward any specifics. Hence, I kept it brief and plain.

1. Do you not think that a coupling of punishment with an explanation of why punishment is necessary is a good way to reinforce the negative consequences of that action while simultaneously educating the child on the morality of their actions? (that's a very long clusterfuck of a sentence, hope it made sense.)

2. What about the exploitation of women in poor or developing countries for the purposes of commercial surrogacy?

Understandable, and I wasn't complaining. Just stating that when given limited info to go off of my responses tend to also be limited.

1. This is where the difference of Discipline VS Punishment comes into play.
Being in ECE (Early Childhood Education) at college atm this is something I've already been trained in.

Discipline is the result/reaction to a misbehaviour that relates to the misbehaviour.

Punishment is a result/reaction that doesn't relate. It is simply there to make the receiver feel bad for what they did.

For example, a child is pouring milk and spills it all over the floor.
Discipline would be having the child grab a mop and clean it up.
Punishment would be sending them to their room, yelling at them or slapping their wrist for it.

Raising a child on discipline allows the child to learn and see the natural consequences of their actions.
They gain and are given (By their mentor/guardian) insight, explanation and reasoning for what happened, why it happened and what should happen as a result.
This allows for more healthy and positive child development, a better relationship between parent & child and a better understanding on what and why something is wrong.

Also, punishment like hitting is never, ever necessary to teach your child a lesson.
Is it easy? Yes, if you're the kind of parent you can stomach your child being in pain.
Can it make them stop? Maybe, depends on the child.
Does the child walk away with much outside of injuries and bruises? Maybe guilt, and anything that causes them to understand what they did is wrong can be better done with discipline, natural consequences and communication.

2. Anything that put's a person in a situation where they feel forced to do something they don't want to do (Obvious exceptions such as paying taxes) I despise.
In the same sense, I think prostitution should be legal. But entrapping women into doing it, or making it their only way to support themselves is not ok.

[Phoenix]

Magic Magnum said
Understandable, and I wasn't complaining. Just stating that when given limited info to go off of my responses tend to also be limited.1. This is where the difference of Discipline VS Punishment comes into play.Being in ECE (Early Childhood Education) at college atm this is something I've already been trained in.Discipline is the result/reaction to a misbehaviour that relates to the misbehaviour.Punishment is a result/reaction that doesn't relate. It is simply there to make the receiver feel bad for what they did.For example, a child is pouring milk and spills it all over the floor.Discipline would be having the child grab a mop and clean it up.Punishment would be sending them to their room, yelling at them or slapping their wrist for it.Raising a child on discipline allows the child to learn and see the natural consequences of their actions.They gain and are given (By their mentor/guardian) insight, explanation and reasoning for what happened, why it happened and what should happen as a result.This allows for more healthy and positive child development, a better relationship between parent & child and a better understanding on what and why something is wrong.Also, punishment like hitting is never, ever necessary to teach your child a lesson.Is it easy? Yes, if you're the kind of parent you can stomach your child being in pain.Can it make them stop? Maybe, depends on the child.Does the child walk away with much outside of injuries and bruises? Maybe guilt, and anything that causes them to understand what they did is wrong can be better done with discipline, natural consequences and communication.

I agree with you, but there are some things were discipline is difficult or impossible to enact due to the nature of the misbehavior. This is why I specified the social and emotional mores and taboos which might call for punishment rather than discipline. It's difficult to make a child feel a certain emotion and furthermore to make them realize that other people even have emotions (considering how socio or psychopathic the child).
Also, if they purposefully spill something and know that their discipline will be to clean it up, they might learn that they can spill it whenever they like as long as they clean it up, resulting in wasteful and counter-productive behavior.
That's stretching for a counter-argument, but something I just thought up that might be legitimate >.> I dunno...

[Goldmarble]

Halo said Smacking: Why do you draw the lines where you do? Should a parent who slaps 4 times be berated or punished? Should the punishment be the same for a parent who smacks four times as a parent who leaves cuts and black eyes? If not, again, where is the line drawn? Fertility tourism: is it not our role to work as a society to protect those who are easily exploitable?

Why do I draw the lines where I do? Because to me, they make logical sense, and in a way are common timings of our own motions. It is normal for a person to swing once, twice, or three times at most things, such as waving, knocking on a door, etc. Besides that, more than three, what are you accomplishing? I personally believe that one slap upside the ass might not be enough of a wake up call to some kids; two or three will. After that, four, five, six? Now you're just releasing your own feelings into the punishment, not keeping it objective.

Punishment for exceeding what I perceive to be as common sense restrictions to my own actions? I am not qualified, nor eligible to say. To put it bluntly, you asked me for my own personal opinion, and I interpreted it as what I, personally would hold myself to. What other people will do, is up to them. If a parent however leaves cuts, raw skin, or anything obviously far beyond what could be considered legitimately punishment, then it is assault.

Is it our role to protect people from exploitation?
1: How is Fertility Tourism exploiting anyone? It is people going outside of their own country for Fertility Treatment, such as In vitro fertilization treatments and such, from what I read.
2: No. It is not our duty to protect people from their own ignorance. If someone is doing something that does not harm, or interfere with anyone else? I personally believe that no one has a right to interfere. Who am I to tell someone else, how they should live, or what they should do with themselves? Simply put, my personal belief is, we as society need to stay out of people's lives, and that people need to stop shirking the responsibilities that come with their freedoms and rights.

[Vanq]

1. Smacking/Spanking

I'll preface this by noting that I was raised in a household where spanking was used as a form of discipline. It was only used when I was of an age where logic or reason was not something possible. So for a couple years, I was spanked. I was too young to remember it, but it was also quite effective to curb the behavior from what my parents told me. Once I was old enough to have logic/reason and more importantly, guilt, used against me, that's what they did.

Spanking is acceptable, beating your kids is not. There are already laws that prohibit beating and abusing your child. And there is a difference that can be told, even if the line is fine or gray. Verbal/psychological/emotional abuse is recognized much the same as physical abuse, yet we aren't talking about bringing in parents who yell at their kids or tell them they did something "bad." (Side note, I have known people who were very against using any negative words to their children. They created little monsters.) It's much the same with spanking to me. A physical consequence to a young child's actions, particularly at a time where the brain is not developed enough to reason, is effective and I would say not detrimental. (And as a caveat to any kind of punishment, knowing that they are still loved is necessary, a terrible parent is a terrible parent no matter how they discipline.)

2. Fertility Tourism

Against it, pretty much universally. The money that pours into IVF/surrogacy/etc etc could be much better spent on reforming the adoption and foster systems. There are millions of children who need families, I honestly, find it disturbing that so many people are willing to throw so much money down the drain just to have a child that is biologically theirs. When you add in the layer of going to poorer/developing countries to receive treatment, it only gets worse. From suspect conditions to the lack of regulations and safeguards for the women donating their eggs or bodies...I'm not saying we can or should make this illegal. But we should push people towards a adoption. How? Drop coverage for IVF, majorly revamp the adoption/foster system, for starters.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Phoenix said
I agree with you, but there are some things were discipline is difficult or impossible to enact due to the nature of the misbehavior. This is why I specified the social and emotional mores and taboos which might call for punishment rather than discipline. It's difficult to make a child feel a certain emotion and furthermore to make them realize that other people even have emotions (considering how socio or psychopathic the child). Also, if they purposefully spill something and know that their discipline will be to clean it up, they might learn that they can spill it whenever they like as long as they clean it up, resulting in wasteful and counter-productive behavior. That's stretching for a counter-argument, but something I just thought up that might be legitimate >.> I dunno...

There's other discipline methods that can be practiced first.
Losing access to the milk (Make sure they still have access to something to drink though), all spill able glasses locked away and they now have to work with sippie cups.
They now need to ask their parents to get the stuff for them (Move the Milk and glasses out of the child's reach).

Also doing any kind of discipline or punishment only once or twice rarely stops the child from doing it.
Repetition is needed, you may need to have the child clean up their own spill over a dozen times before they stop. But they'll stop.

Also with most children the ability to relate to other's feelings is something that happens developmentally over time.
Before hand is known as "Egocentric", it's not a form of selfishness or greed. They just literally can't comprehend yet that people outside of them have feelings.

Vanq said
Verbal/psychological/emotional abuse is recognized much the same as physical abuse, yet we aren't talking about bringing in parents who yell at their kids or tell them they did something "bad." (Side note, I have known people who were very against using any negative words to their children. They created little monsters.

This is true, verbal/psychological/emotional abuse can be just if not more harmful to the child than physical abuse.
Like when I was growing up as a kid my Mom yelled at me and we got into arguments every day for one reason or another (and being the adult, whenever we told others like family or teachers they'd always side with her cause "she's the adult, she must be right") and unsurprisingly as a result today, I don't really have much feelings for her or care at all about what she thinks of me or what I do.

Though I do need to ask Vanq, can you clarify what you mean when you say negative words?

[Brovo]

Halo said
I'm curious about general opinions on two issues:
1. Smacking children (fairly self-explanatory.)
2. Fertility tourism (.)

I'm participating in debates about these two topics, and have been doing some background reading. I've formulated some of my own ideas on them, and I'm curious to see how others feel about them.

Okay.

1) Yes, when other methods are exhausted and the thing that needs to be taught is a matter of survival. (Basically: Case by case basis. Equal force for equal necessity.)

2) I have little in the way of knowledge on this subject but would initially feel caution would be in order. Not necessarily outright make it illegal, but take it warily.

[Protagonist]

As for the first question, I say yes. The way I see it: Humans, by default, are about as decent as any wild animal; which is to day, not very. We eventually become trained to act more upright, and respect others. It is a parent's duty to most directly oversee said training. One of the most effective tools in their toolbox is pavlovian training. If a child misbehaves, he'll be punished, and overtime, he'll develop the essential neurological links which make misbehavior seem undesirable. Physical pain is one of the most reliable ways to help form these links.

As for the difference between abuse and spanking is this: Abuse. No really. A good parent would only punish their children to fulfill their duty to produce good citizens. An abusive parent has a more sinister intent; and seeks to harm their children. Now, as abusive parents are a rot unto society, decent government has no particular fondness of them. There's a few tools which they can use to identify and eliminate abusive parenthood. For example, if a child is being bruised badly, or showing obvious psychological damage, the parent either is too irresponsible to raise children, or clearly doesn't have the child's best interests at heart.