Comment: OK, if the result of the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I disagree (see in situ)

OK, if the result of the

OK, if the result of the choice is "Child Dies" or health is negatively impacted then sure, you will not get moral arguments from me about that. If that situation could have been prevented by early teaching, then yes, you will get a moral argument from me. Please feed, cloth, bath and love your children.

None of those actions require hitting them.

There are multitude alternative methods for dealing with unwanted behavior. Hitting them is one available option. If you choose that option, you are violating the NAP. The fact that at some other time, to protect the actual health of your child you might need to use force does not change the fact that choosing to hit them when other options are available is a choice and violates the NAP.

The fact proponents of "spanking" need to use a different word should be a clue to it's moral vulnerability. Kind of like Enhanced interrogation instead of torture.

Using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve desirable behavior is sad and pathetic.

What conversation will you have with your child about hitting when they get older? Use a mirror and have that conversation with yourself today. It really is that simple.

All these mental gymnastics to justify an avoidable actions are really confusing to me. Start solving the problems of the initiation of force at home today. Commit to it and see what kind of alternative solutions you can come up with.