Philosophical Vegan Forum

I was watching a video from the YouTube channel "The atheist voice.", and its topic was a recent controversy regarding a couple that wanted to adopt foster children, but were denied because they had said that they spank their biological children. The reason for this was that the adoption agency did not want the foster children ( Many of whom had come from abusive families.) in contact with copereal punishment. What do you guys think about this? Was this an acceptable decision made by the adoption agency and is spanking an unacceptable method of discipline? Or was this a poor decision and is spanking an acceptable means of discipline?

I think violence or threats of violence is not the way to bring up a child.

Insert name here wrote:Was this an acceptable decision made by the adoption agency and is spanking an unacceptable method of discipline?

No. This was not an acceptable decision as from what I am aware of, most parts of the world allow spanking as legal forms of punishment. It is not the responsibility nor is it the right of the adoption agency to choose what parents will do with their children unless it is illegal.

Or was this a poor decision and is spanking an acceptable means of discipline?

While I do not consider the adoption agencies decision to be acceptable, I do consider spanking to be an unacceptable form of discipline. As a small child (3-6), I was spanked. I wasn't spanked hard according to my father (whose father beat him), but it left lasting psychological wounds. Until approximately the age of 12, whenever my dad moved his arm towards me I would flinch. I still sometimes do and I feel bad, as he regrets his choices and has apologized to me on multiple occasions. Another thing to note is that it seems as if spanking is a gateway to pummeling or punching, as in middle school, my father would repeatedly punch me as I was very depressed and suicidal and he felt helpless and distressed. It didn't hurt too bad, but it certainly broke my trust and love for him. (these wounds have been mended through time and his apologies, regrets, and an end to these negative behaviors) Furthermore, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would beat a child unless the child was physically assaulting them or others and it was the only method of preventing them from doing so. It may be an effective method of subduing rebellious children (as it worked for me), but this does not outweigh its negative physical and psychological effects.

So if you were able to read through that scatter brained, melodramatic, first world sob story, I congratulate you!

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:No. This was not an acceptable decision as from what I am aware of, most parts of the world allow spanking as legal forms of punishment. It is not the responsibility nor is it the right of the adoption agency to choose what parents will do with their children unless it is illegal.

I can see where you are coming from with that arguement, to be honest I didn't think anyone would would mention something like that. That being said, spanking is controversial arguement, I remember some legislature defining permitted use of spanking by granting the parents the right to "Use reasonable force." But that then begs the question of what is reasonable force, and where is the line drawn? I don't think that a line should be drawn because I do not think parents should use copereal actions as discipline. Regarding the agency, I do understand why they denied the parents the ability to adopt, but I also know that your arguement does make sense. It only goes to show that there a a multitude of different opinions regarding this topic.

Reasonable force basically means nothing. I've heard that psychological or physical wounds define

Reasonable force basically means nothing. I've heard that psychological or physical wounds are the prerequisite for something to be considered unreasonable force, but it's up for interpretation.

I think I probably agree with Cirion.

Adoption agencies can have a bad habit of being overly picky, and also imposing their own values on others, even when the adoption agent is in the wrong. In this case they may be right, but it's a bad habit to make arbitrary decisions like that. These things should be legislated and determined on the basis of evidence.

If you're running out of kids and can't keep up with demand, then we can start talking about being more picky and adding more cost and paperwork to slow things down. As it stands, there are too many kids stuck in the system.

Certain times, only extreme circumstances I think it might be ok to do it, but it should never be done out of anger and certainly not with a wooden spoon like it was with me with all the anger and shouting.

I still remember an awful night where my mother was so angry she slammed the spoon on my dresser to scare me just before beating me with it and broken it and rampaged off in even a greater anger trying to find another one to beat me with.

yeah...I had that kind of childhood. Worst thing is I have no idea what I could had done to deserve that, so whatever it was.....I never learned my lesson.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:No. This was not an acceptable decision as from what I am aware of, most parts of the world allow spanking as legal forms of punishment.

Is what the adoption agency did legal? If it is, I don't really see the issue, when what they're doing is most likely helping the kids (many of whom have already been abused).

If the kids said they'd rather be with the parents though, then that's different.

So what if most places allow it as a legal form of punishment?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:It is not the responsibility nor is it the right of the adoption agency to choose what parents will do with their children unless it is illegal.

It isn't the right? So it's illegal for the agencies to do that?

It seems to me that it is almost always the responsibility of adoption agencies to ensure that they aren't placing kids in abusive situations.

How many kids are going to be abused while we're trying to fix the child abuse laws?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Adoption agencies can have a bad habit of being overly picky, and also imposing their own values on others, even when the adoption agent is in the wrong.

What's wrong with not helping others do the wrong thing?

brimstoneSalad wrote:In this case they may be right, but it's a bad habit to make arbitrary decisions like that.

How is it arbitrary? They don't want the kids to be subjected to abuse.

I don't understand how it's legal to do that to your kids, but illegal to not let them be vegetarians etc.. Where is the line drawn there? Why?

Shadow Fox wrote:Certain times, only extreme circumstances I think it might be ok to do it,

I don't think any action is always wrong, but what are you thinking of here where it'd be acceptable?

^
I'm not certain if it's illegal, but I would consider it unethical as I don't think adoption agencies should have the right to impose their values on otherwise law abiding citizens. Should a Christian adoption agency have the right to only offer children to Christian parents?

It would probably be acceptable to beat a child in self defense. It would probably not be the best method or even an effective method of preventing the assault, but in such a high stress scenario it might be justified.