Attack on Religious Freedom?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Here is an interesting read on the subject.

http://www.grin.com/en/doc/233965/th...t-and-physical

It seems one man's "correction" is another man's "abuse".
In my opinion there is a big difference between beating and spanking. A smack on the bottom to reinforce parental instruction does not equate with hitting, punching, etc. The problem is what one thinks about the meaning of "harm".

Agreed. A smack to the bottom sometimes sets me straight, can even be a bit enjoyable in the right setting. Punching? Aaaaaaa, not so much......

Dave

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Here is an interesting read on the subject.

http://www.grin.com/en/doc/233965/th...t-and-physical

It seems one man's "correction" is another man's "abuse".
In my opinion there is a big difference between beating and spanking. A smack on the bottom to reinforce parental instruction does not equate with hitting, punching, etc. The problem is what one thinks about the meaning of "harm".

Absolutely. People arguing this point split into two camps. Those against spanking never call it spanking, they call it hitting or beating. Me? I'd rather my daughter was afraid of being spanked if she ran across a road than have her maimed because being told never to do it wasn't taken seriously enough.

[d-ray657]

We spanked our kids in their early years. As the ability to engage in verbal reasoning increased, the need for physical punishment decreased. In my experience the consistency of the message is more important than the nature of the punishment. But the most effective punishment seemed to be adverse consequences directly related to the nature of the misconduct. We also tried to make it clear that the punishment was related to the conduct, not to their value as members of the family. The message was usually that they had acted contrary to what they knew was right and that we expected better.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Twodogs]

So what happens when the Catholics start closing hospitals?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

So what happens when the Catholics start closing hospitals?

Fewer people might die?

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

So what happens when the Catholics start closing hospitals?

Then the republicans will be happy since the lack of federal funding is an indicator of smaller government and also provides the opportunity for Americans to take more personal responsibility.

[barbara]

If I had a smiley face that indicated sarcasm, I would have used it in my previous post.

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by barbara

Then the republicans will be happy since the lack of federal funding is an indicator of smaller government and also provides the opportunity for Americans to take more personal responsibility.

Dammit, real Americans should be sewing themselves up at home, not running like a bunch of crybabies to a Catholic hospital!

[merrylander]

My previous comment was conditioned by the fact that up until age 40 I lived in a predominantly catholic province. I can tell you that there were catholic hospitals, and there were catholic - what's the word - krankenhauses. Some were concerned with making you well, others spent more time on your immortal soul. I saw some woodcuts of certain medieval hospitals a while back that sort of fit the bill.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

So what happens when the Catholics start closing hospitals?

They haven't closed them in the 28 states that already have similar requirements. The bishops are trying to somehow recover the moral high ground after years of operating a criminal enterprise (i.e., widespread pedophilia and coverup). They happened to pick an issue with which 98% of their female parishioners disagree.