Search Results: stick with one person

Pro-life people are all for NO abbortion, but when it comes down to it's just another unwanted person on the planet. They get sent to an orphanage or foster care where they're thrown into a systen in which nobody cares about them. People who are pro-life don't adopt children or volunteer for foster parents. They couldn't care less where thoese unwanted children end up. Only people who adopt children are people who can't have children, or people who have lived their life through the system and they want to spare at least one child that suffering.

People who preach adopt a dog and not buy are just as bad. It's not the breeders fault that the PEOPLE throw out their dogs onto the street just because their dog is old and they want a "newer younger version." It's the consumers fault that dogs and cats are stuck in this epidemic in the first place. Instead of making people feel bad for buying a dog and breeders for breeding instead of adopting, how about you start shaming people for droping their dogs off in the middle of nowhere or at a pound/shelter because their dog is old. Or because their dog got pregnant and they won't want the responsibility of puppies. In chain effect the people who do that are handing thoes dogs the death sentence. Which relates to people who say by not buying meat you're saving animals. You're not saving animals by not eating meat. If you don't eat that meat somebody else will. Farmers are still making money by slaughtering animals whether you eat meat or not.

Let's say everyone on the plant was all the sudden forced to adopt dogs & cats and not buy from a breeder. All the veriety of dog breeds would eventually die out and eventually there would be no more dog breeds at all. We would have to start all over from the very bottom by trying to domesticate wolves.

What is you're take on this subject?

My boyfriend and I (both latinos) come from a background where we were hit too hard with a household object and both of us think that was too much.

My father would use a belt on me during my very early ages. Practically all the times it was used, he did it in frustration/anger and tend to overdo it to the point I was already crying and pleading for it to stop. He did the same to my younger brother. Long ago when my brother was only 2 years old and nearly dropped a teapot with boiling water, he left a couple bruises on his bottom and the back of one side of his leg was swollen with the belt and he only stopped when he accidently hit one side of his face with it (it happened when my brother was turning around to run).

In my bf's case, it was his mother that used to hit him with a stick or strap. It was pretty much done out of frustration/anger too.

This resulted in my complete hatred towards the usage of corporal punishment on a child, esp if it were my own kid; the person I'm suppose to love, protect, cherish, guide and teacher. My boyfriend only thinks spanking should be done with only the hands but never hard nor ever done in anger. Though his approach is a mild version in comparing to our backgrounds, I still have an issue spanking kids, even with the hands. I also don't agree with his stance that if you don't spank your child they'll grow up criminals.
Now back to my question, shouldn't spanking/hitting a child with a belt, sandals, sticks or any object be classified immediately as assault and child abuse? I definitely think so.