Anti-spanking advocates argue chiefly that spanking is abusive, that it is ineffective, and that it teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with other people. They point to the fact that scientific research has failed to back up any of the claims in favor of spanking while research has consistently shown that the number one predictor of violent behavior is whether someone comes from a home where violence is practiced, including a home where children are subjected to physical punishment. Some believe that spanking contributes to physical abuse in cases of domestic violence, bullying at school and physical abuse on siblings. Most violent criminals were spanked as children and many cases of bullying at school have been linked to physical abuse cases. Spanking is also criticized for being a violation[14] of human rights. Many are concerned by the fact that spanking is a sexual activity enjoyed by large sections of the adult population and are afraid that spanking might constitute sexual abuse or cause sexual dysfunction.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) official policy statement [5] states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." The AAP states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". Furthermore, they state that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults [15] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[16]"
The American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). They state that corporal punishment is violent, unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, is likely to train children to use physical violence, and is liable to instill hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behavior. [17]
The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on spanking states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment" [18]
England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists have called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour."[19] and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children" [20]
The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undersirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems[21]
UNESCO states "During the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO launched a new report entitled "Eliminating Corporal Punishment - The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline". The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the homes...To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".[22]
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in institutions, in schools, and in the home.[23]
Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, some maintain that spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual stimulation. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.[24]
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst said "The literature is replete with accounts of rape victims who never came forward to name their accuser or even to admit they'd been violated because they were so ashamed at their bodies' involuntary response to touch, thinking that this would suggest they enjoyed the assault. Nerve endings can and do function without our conscious consent. The pendulum is beginning to turn against spanking and paddling as science amasses more and more evidence regarding the sexual role played by the buttocks, and the ways in which any touch--with a hand or with a paddle--can create unwelcome but unavoidable arousal." Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, member of ChristCentered Christians for Nonviolent Parenting (CCNP); clinical psychologist; author of How Would Jesus Raise a Child? (Baker Books, 2003), Project Zero, Harvard's premier research institution.
Opponents also hold that spanking is ineffective and that other forms of discipline are more successful at teaching a child to behave properly. Also, unlike taking away a child's favorite toy, spanking is permanent and cannot be reversed if it is determined that it was not actually warranted. Spanking may lead to psychological damage and even possible PTS syndrome-related effects due to prolonged fear, feelings of mistrust , being un-loved and love-shyness, alike with bullying at school or other forms of abuse.
The fact that a parent (or other caregiver) is allowed to inflict physical and emotional pain on a child, whereas the same act performed upon another adult would be tantamount to assault, also brings into question the appropriateness of this form of physical punishment. For example, when Michael Fay, a young American man, was caned in Singapore, some Americans expressed outrage against that form of punishment.
Opponents also claim that spanking teaches children that violence is an appropriate way to treat one who offends. Some believe that spanking, like clear-cut forms of physical abuse, may perpetuate a "cycle of violence" which contributes to violent behavior in the child as an adult. Children learn by example, and those subjected to the deliberate infliction of physical pain "to teach them a lesson" will, the argument goes, learn that this is an appropriate way to treat others who have wronged them.
It is also argued that there is a significant risk in regards to the trust of a parent.[/B] If children feel that they are being threatened by this form of chastisement, it is likely that they may have difficulty believing that the parents are there to protect them because of the claim "I would never hurt you" has been violated. This may impair their ability to follow their parents or do what they advise and to listen to them. (Though, as hinted in the preceding section, pro-spankers would object that it is refusing to spank, rather than spanking, that violates the claim "I will never hurt you", since in their view one harms the child by not giving due, reasonable and timely punishment and, in their view, responsible spanking is a licit means of inflicting such punishment).
It is also attested by neurological studies on neuronal stengthening and pain in brain development that children have a much lower pain threshold than adults.[citation needed]
When "Biblical" pro-spanking advocates use the "he who spares the rod hates his son" quote from Proverbs 13:24 to support their position, some anti-spankers try to turn the tables by noting that Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to whom the book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed, grew up to be such a despised ruler that he split his nation in two. But since the traditional attribution of Proverbs to Solomon has been disputed by some biblical scholars, this is a dubious line of argument. A better objection against the use of Proverbs 13:24 to support spanking is that the Old Testament, from which the book of Proverbs comes, contains many instructions that we today have no moral obligation to follow, such as that a child of unmarried parents may not enter a place of worship (Deuteronomy 23:2), that a menstruating woman must sacrifice two turtles or pigeons to cleanse herself (Leviticus 15: 19-29), and that the parents of a gluttonous and drunkard child, who repeatedly rebels against them, should denounce the child to the men of the city, who should then execute the child by stoning (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Such verses are considered instructions but most Christians would not advocate the stoning to death of drunkard children or adulterers. On the other hand, this view completely ignores the fact that the verses which mention "the rod" are from the book of Proverbs, historically interpreted as advice, not law. However, the passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the Torah, the Jewish system of law, which Christians reckon obsolete due to Christ's fulfillment of the law. Some religious organizations outside Christianity, such as Hinduism and the Church of the Cosmic Order, oppose spanking as it is against their teachings. [citation needed]
