Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 10:15:17

Besides, most here seem to indicate that they would be satisfed with just building stuff and looking around. Not many clamour for the desire to go have their unborn children birthed upon martian soil...

As you well know public desire isn't one of my prime concerns.

To go and learn about the planet, to build knowing we won't stay is somewhat pointless. A game for our own amusement, nothing more.

Artifical wombs? Go ahead and try. Some people may steal, big finger to the man, so we shouldn't try to prevent stealing? You can do better Cobra.

How can you be certain that children conceived and born on Mars will have health problems because of it without first trying? Sure, there's all sorts of extrapolations based on what we kno of the effects of radiation, gravity and whatnot, but no one can conclusively say anything. Does it make sense to prohibit something that might not be a problem to start with?

Find out if humans can reproduce on Mars, if problems arise try to find solutions. Only if all options have been exhausted does what you suggest start to make much sense.

Hey now, I simply don't agree. Mars is just one planet that looks attractive based on our current abilites. If we fail there, it just means we fail there. This would be like saying, "if we can't make it in Ranoke, we can't make it anywhere."

Sure, one failure doesn't negate the possibility of success. Mars is more hospitable given our present capabilities than any of the other options, yet that doesn't mandate that it be first. But it seems sensible in the context of becoming spacefaring.

You might be right, but your concerns might prove to be much ado about nothing.

BWhite · 2005-01-31 10:28:30

Sure, one failure doesn't negate the possibility of success. Mars is more hospitable given our present capabilities than any of the other options, yet that doesn't mandate that it be first. But it seems sensible in the context of becoming spacefaring.
You might be right, but your concerns might prove to be much ado about nothing.

Are there any better "first locations" than Mars? Where?

Mars would be a steppingstone to giant O'Neillian habitats maybe even Niven's ringworlds or Dyson spheres.

= = =

Humanity is not united on these questions (and many other questions!)

Therefore, I see it rather like a Dutch-style auction.

As technology improves, the "cost" and "risk" of settling Mars will decline over time until one day some group goes ahead and tries it. Maybe they thrive and maybe they fail.

Then someone else tries. The question is "when" and people need not agree. I strongly oppose spanking, but not to the point that its criminalized in every context.

The "mothering" instinct is strong. Few women will agree to bear children on Mars unless they believe they can offer their children a worthwhile life. I propose that "society" defer to that judgment, with all of us retaining the right to fully and freely offer our opinions.

= = =

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1]New article on the question of whether we truly can have a coherent space program until we face the "two planet" question. Or the "spacefaring" question if you prefer O'Neillian floating habs.

The VSE's call to "explore" is marvelously ambiguous on this point, allowing the Administration to show different faces to different people.

LOL! Imagine that!

But clark is right, this does fit in Scott Beach's spanking thread at least to some degree.

clark · 2005-01-31 10:34:38

As you well know public desire isn't one of my prime concerns.

As you know, it's not mine either.

To go and learn about the planet, to build knowing we won't stay is somewhat pointless. A game for our own amusement, nothing more.

So if the world was in agreement that scientific study was the only option of exploring Mars, you wouldn't support it?

I'm not surprised, the intellectual pursuit of scientific advancement is largely hollow for most people- which is why the general population dosen't care about manned space exploration. This is one of the reasons I am talking about this, it helps define general boundaries and understand what is driving the underlying desire.

How can you be certain that children conceived and born on Mars will have health problems because of it without first trying? Sure, there's all sorts of extrapolations based on what we kno of the effects of radiation, gravity and whatnot, but no one can conclusively say anything. Does it make sense to prohibit something that might not be a problem to start with?

All true. Of course, I could say the same thing about the Moon, Venus, or the surface of the sun. No one can "conclusively" say it can't be done.

Does it make sense to rush ahead before we answer a fair number of unknown questions, first? We can assume a certain level of problems and inherent risk which would lead us to expect some sort of difficulties, so wouldn't that rationale and wise course be to go slowly before we over commit?

Find out if humans can reproduce on Mars, if problems arise try to find solutions. Only if all options have been exhausted does what you suggest start to make much sense.

In all liklihood, humans can reproduce on Mars. That's not the question- it's whether or not they should raise children there through all of the developmental life stages. Trying to solve the problems after the fact (especially considering we can anticipate some type of problems) seems unwise and unfair to the children we would use as test subjects.

"Mommy and Daddy wanted to go to Mars, and so Junior, you're stuck paying the price. Maybe one day we can minimize the damage. Yes, we should have thought of this sooner, but we needed to start a civilization TODAY!"

Maybe part of being a spac faring society, a solar system civilization, is to to be a bit more rationale in our approaches to our own expansion. What I am arguing is for a more responsible and conservative approach that dosen't preclude anything, merely maximizes the saftey and choices of those who will come after us.

It's the basic flaw in the Mars argument- why the rush? I can understand and agree to starting, but becoming a space faring civilization will take centuries to millenia, it is a multi-generational endeavour, not something to be done and completed in a single human life time, or several human life times.

clark · 2005-01-31 10:55:50

But clark is right, this does fit in Scott Beach's spanking thread at least to some degree.

I love validation. :laugh: Slippery slopes are not always self-apparent...

Are there any better "first locations" than Mars? Where?
Mars would be a steppingstone to giant O'Neillian habitats maybe even Niven's ringworlds or Dyson spheres.

All "first" locations are similar, they all are fundamentally artifical environments with varying degrees of individual issues that must be overcome. Mars looks good, but it isn't that great to begin with.

I might also add that O'Neillian habitats could be a steppingstone to Mars. If you can live in an artifical world where you can control gravity, then you have the means to test the range. Mars would just teach us about living on Mars.

The VSE's call to "explore" is marvelously ambiguous on this point, allowing the Administration to show different faces to different people.

I can think of no better way to unite the space exploration community. Our space exploration should be about more than one planet in the solar system, our desire should be more than just colonizing one more planet too.

Why settle on a piece of cake when you could have it all?

Besides, if the Dutch aution is the case, VSE isn't important other than to increase technology base and reduce risk to allow some other group to take the reigns.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 11:14:37

So if the world was in agreement that scientific study was the only option of exploring Mars, you wouldn't support it?

Not to the same degree. I'd still support scientific study of the planet, but I'd be more inclined toward an unmanned approach. Why send people to Mars if we know that we can never keep people on Mars?

I don't necessarily disagree with your take it slow philosophy, I just have a somewhat different perspective on it. Rather than assume something won't work until we prove it can I'm cautiously optimistic that it will work until proven otherwise. Certainly we need more data on mammals living and breeding in low-G and how much radiation is too much, I'd rather find that out as quickly as possible than intentionally hold things up.

Any problems can almost certainly be overcome.

BWhite · 2005-01-31 11:14:52

Why settle on a piece of cake when you could have it all?

Right now, I am working on the details of sending methane from Mars to Luna.

=IF= there is no readily available lunar ice; and

=IF= Mars has methane clathrates, as Oliver Morton thinks possible

Marsian methane would be very useful when combusted with lunar oxygen. (Luna lacks hydrogen and carbon. Burning methane - - CH4 - - produces H20 + CO2 + energy)

As Rick Tumlinson said: "Moon-Mars" is one word, not two.

Besides, if the Dutch aution is the case, VSE isn't important other than to increase technology base and reduce risk to allow some other group to take the reigns.

Ah, but that is the question. Does the VSE do that?

Unless CEV costs less to LEO than Soyuz or Clipper it's a sidetrack, not the main line.

Edited By BWhite on 1107191821

clark · 2005-01-31 11:25:46

Not to the same degree. I'd still support scientific study of the planet, but I'd be more inclined toward an unmanned approach. Why send people to Mars if we know that we can never keep people on Mars?

Now you see how the other half lives. : D

Isn't that really the point of sending people- to see if we can keep people on Mars. Sending a probe is noteworthy, but sending people is an achievement- just as having babies off earth. But it is most sensible to take one achievement at a time...

Rather than assume something won't work until we prove it can I'm cautiously optimistic that it will work until proven otherwise.

I'm optimistic too, don't get me wrong. However, as this thread is about kids, it would be unethical to go forward on optimism alone. "Damit Jim, kids are people too!"

Right now, I am working on the details of sending methane from Mars to Luna.

Bill, with always full of gas...

Ah, but that is the question. Does the VSE do that?
Unless CEV costs less to LEO than Soyuz or Clipper it's a sidetrack, not the main line.

Don't tell GCN, but read a recent Wired article about our dear friend Musk. Seems Elon is aiming for the "America's Space Prize" (Of Bigelow). Aiming at 5 people to LEO on a Falcon V... gee, didn't I say that earlier? :;):

GCN never took me up on my hobo bet. (se la ve)

BWhite · 2005-01-31 11:30:06

Falcon V?

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … t=0]Russia still leads the world, by far.

Falcon V may be less expensive than Delta IV but can it undercut the Soyuz 2 lifted Kliper.

And this:

Russia's engine manufacturers consider the development of nuclear rocket engines as one of the promising areas of their work. Interest in them has re-emerged due to plans to send a manned expedition to Mars. The project will most likely involve international cooperation, as was seen during the development, construction and servicing of the International Space Station. The contribution of Russian scientists to sending a manned expedition to Mars may be significant in all aspects, including in the development of nuclear propulsion systems.

If any of those nasty anti-nuke folks show up, Putin will just "lock 'em up!"

Edited By BWhite on 1107192768

clark · 2005-01-31 11:38:45

Off topic, but to be on topic slighty: Stop beating the kids. Kick your dog instead (note to self: write apology letter to PETA, nuts.)

Falcon V may be less expensive than Delta IV but can it undercut the Soyuz 2 lifted Kliper.

The race of the vapor-ware? :laugh:

I have more belief in Falcon flying than Klipper. Cheaper is just a matter of time as the big-space guys watch their market get undercut. They'll be forced to redesign and work at the new cost levels.

Grypd · 2005-01-31 13:12:36

Falcon V may be less expensive than Delta IV but can it undercut the Soyuz 2 lifted Kliper.
The race of the vapor-ware? :laugh:
I have more belief in Falcon flying than Klipper. Cheaper is just a matter of time as the big-space guys watch their market get undercut. They'll be forced to redesign and work at the new cost levels.

I actually have more faith in Russia and its Kliper than the Falcon V. The Russians apear to be building a modernised version of the Soyuz and have done the basic research. It will cost 10 billion rubles but with the improvements in the situation in Russia and with there financial side becoming more stable they seem to have the money for it.(not to mention the will for the prestige)

clark · 2005-01-31 13:23:41

I've side tracked my share of threads, so why not another one?

But, to be on topic, I will not beat children, and will do my best to tell everyone I know who does have children not to beat them.

Now, ahem, where was I, ah, yes!

Klipper needs a new rocket. Soyuz is 20 million a shot, for three (or is it 20 million a seat?). Falcon is slated at 12 million, plus range fees- for five.

If the legal fiasco with Northrup goes away, SpaceX is on target to achive all of its goals- physical set backs aside.

Russia's economy maybe improving, but their space infrastructure is falling apart. They depend on launch pads outside of their physical control, and they still need 10 billion roubles to build and test the ship (all while they try to sell seats to afford the ship they do have). It's shaky, and not very sustainable (including the fact that more immediate concerns, such as funding their military is in need of extra resources).

Klipper is a politcal stunt to entice the EU to work with Russia in space, and drive a wedge between EU and US work. It provides leverage for the EU when dealing with Uncle Sam. Either way, it is 5-10 years away from any kind of start and development.

Falcon I should be launched sometime this year, and Falcon V should be launched the following year (Falcon V is little more than a bunch of Falcon I's strapped together).

Orbital reentry work has already been done with Apollo and Gemini and Mercury capsules- you don't need much more than that technolopy base to keep people alive in space, and bring them back. The trick is for cheap launch services- which Falcon is designed to do.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-31 13:25:26

Dear Representative Allen:

On November 10, 2004, CBSNews.com published an article about a male employer who spanked two, 19-year-old female employees. These spankings were supposedly administered as a form of corporal punishment. However, I believe that these spankings were really administered for the sexual gratification of the man doing the spanking. These spankings are examples of sexual assaults disguised as corporal punishment.

The people of Texas should not allow sexual assault to be disguised as corporal punishment. To prevent this sort of assault, the people of Texas should prohibit corporal punishment from being administered to the sexually sensitive areas of a female's body. These areas include her breasts, vulva, buttocks, and thighs.

Please introduce a bill that will prohibit administering corporal punishment to the sexually sensitive areas of any child's body.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach
____

"Tsk! Tsk! Boss Spanks Workers

RED BANK, Tenn. - The owner of a shaved ice business was arrested after two employees claimed he spanked them for making mistakes at work.

Paul Eugene Levengood, 57, was charged with two counts of sexual battery after the 19-year-old women complained..."

clark · 2005-01-31 13:28:10

Scott, I don't understand... you want a NEW law to punish an act that seems to be prosecuted under an exsisting law?

What about tickiling? Is that considered corporal punishment? I mean, some consider that tormenting, and others find it sexualy stimulating- perhaps we should ban tickiling.

Grypd · 2005-01-31 13:33:39

It has been said that we will send a generation of artificial wombs so that an instant population could be created on Mars. Sorry to say if that where to be the case it will be done by another country than the USA. Taking stem cells and developing a fetus in space is not capable for them.

It recently has found that the stem cells it currently has are coated with a sugar enzyme. This means that they are unworkable and it is not known how they got there nor under legislation can they garner more or research how they where so contaminated. And we are far from clone producing a generation of Alphas, Betas and Gammas.

As for Kliper it needs a development of its current launcher to fly. And it is this launcher that can be flown from Kourou. And so Russia wants to work with ESA is that a bad thing it keeps them focused on this side rather than China and for ESA it gives them access to a lot of developed space research and generations of advanced Engines and launchers.

BWhite · 2005-01-31 13:55:02

Significant emigration is the only source of sufficient demand to spur the development of truly low cost Earth to LEO launchers.

IMHO, as always. . .

Grypd · 2005-01-31 15:02:15

Significant emigration is the only source of sufficient demand to spur the development of truly low cost Earth to LEO launchers.
IMHO, as always. . .

Then you have to have a reason for going there and it has to be a commercial reason or one of planetary necessity. At the moment we have neither and have to rely on the spinoffs of going elsewhere in the solar system to reduce launch costs. So if we have a reason to go commercially to the Moon and the Asteroids then we should have a reason to invest in cheaper launchers. So then we can consider emigration.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-31 16:26:20

Clark:

You wrote, "Scott, I don't understand... you want a NEW law to punish an act that seems to be prosecuted under an existing law?"

Two school employees pinned down Ms. Jessica Serfain (a legal adult) while a third school employee beat Ms. Serafin with a four-foot-long board. She was beaten on the hand, hip, buttocks, and leg. She was subsequently taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment.

The three school employees who collaborated to administer corporal punishment to Ms. Serafin have not been arrested or indicted or charged with any crime. The beating of Ms. Serafin was done under color of Texas law, which permits corporal punishment.

Texas law does not currently protect students from being beaten on the sexually sensitive areas of their bodies. I believe that the law should provide such protection.

clark · 2005-02-01 12:02:46

Not the Texas school case Scott.

I was refering to this:

On November 10, 2004, CBSNews.com published an article about a male employer who spanked two, 19-year-old female employees. These spankings were supposedly administered as a form of corporal punishment. However, I believe that these spankings were really administered for the sexual gratification of the man doing the spanking. These spankings are examples of sexual assaults disguised as corporal punishment.

The employer who administered the spankings is being charged under exsisting laws. In fact, he is being charged with sexual assualt.

Maybe we can formulate an alternative to the current practices...

Scott, do you have any suggestions on how unruly children can be disciplined in a constructive manner? Would hitting them on insensitive portions of their body be acceptable?

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-01 20:37:45

Clark:

You asked, "Scott, do you have any suggestions on how unruly children can be disciplined in a constructive manner?"

The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children can be found at http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org]http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org They have posted a web page that contains the two following paragraphs about "positive discipline."

"There are many resources available on the world wide web aimed at supporting parents who decide not to use corporal punishment in bringing up their children. For some organisations and individuals listed below, non-violent parenting is promoted in its own right, while for others it is part of a more developed overall philosophical approach to parenting, such as attachment parenting, natural parenting, Aware Parenting, or a religion-based approach. These websites offer some valuable resources and support in working with children's behaviour without resorting to physical punishment. Most of the parent resources listed below are free of charge unless stated otherwise.

"There are also a number of useful resources on positive discipline techniques for teachers in dealing with classroom management and other aspects of working with pupils in schools. Again, these range from those advocating non-physical ways of punishing children to those advocating a totally non-punitive approach. The majority of educational resources are provided on a commercial basis, though some resources are freely available."

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-11 13:32:06

The following petition was submitted on February 10, 2005. It has been assigned Control Number 0030.

Petition to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
of the United States of America

Petition for Rulemaking

I, Scott G. Beach, request that the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopt a rule which provides that each spanking paddle shall have a permanent label that reads, “WARNING: Spanking causes brain damage.”

Facts which support the issuance of this rule may be found in “The Neurobiology of Child Abuse,” by Martin H. Teicher, in Scientific American, March 2002, pages 68-75.

Respectfully submitted by Scott. G. Beach

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-11 13:34:08

Scars That Won't Heal: The Neurobiology of Child Abuse

Maltreatment can have enduring effects on a child's developing brain, diminishing growth and reducing activity in key areas

By Martin H. Teicher

In 1994 Boston police were shocked to discover a malnourished four-year-old locked away in a filthy Roxbury apartment, where he lived in dreadfully squalid conditions. Worse, the boy’s tiny hands were found to have been horrendously burned. It emerged that his drug-abusing mother had held the child’s hands under a steaming-hot faucet to punish him for eating her boyfriend’s food, despite her instructions not to do so. The ailing youngster had been given no medical care at all. The disturbing story quickly made national headlines. Later placed in foster care, the boy received skin grafts to help his scarred hands regain their function. But even though the victim’s physical wounds were treated, recent research findings indicate that any injuries inflicted to his developing mind may never truly heal.

Though an extreme example, the notorious case is unfortunately not all that uncommon. Every year child welfare agencies in the U.S. receive more than three million allegations of childhood abuse and neglect and collect sufficient evidence to substantiate more than a million instances... (continued at Scientific American Digital)

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-11 19:25:09

To Ms. Page C. Faulk, General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Dear Ms. Faulk:

Mr. Todd Stevenson, Director, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, has informed me that my petition to the CPSC is at this time a "Possible Petition." He has further informed me that my petition was assigned “tracking number 20050030 and sent to the Commission's General Counsel for a determination as to whether it meets the requirements of a ‘petition’ and whether it will be docketed as a petition. The General Counsel has at least thirty days to make that determination.”

I feel a sense of urgency about my petition and I hope that you will very quickly review my petition and allow it to be docketed as a petition. You should place a high priority on the review of my petition because spanking paddles are used to beat children hundreds of times each day all across this country and the people who are wielding those devices are unaware of the serious and permanent harm that they are causing. The torn muscles, broken bones, lacerations, internal bleeding and bruising that is caused by hitting children with spanking paddles is only part of the bodily injury that is caused when such devices are used as intended. Now that we have magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) we can see that childrens' brains are being severely damaged.

The damage to a child’s posterior organs usually heals, although lacerations can leave permanent scars. In contrast, the brain damage that is caused by hitting a child with a spanking paddle can be permanent and can lead to lifelong disabilities, including diminished intelligence (I.Q.), anxiety, depression and other psychiatric disorders. In addition, it should greatly concern all of the members of this society that girls are being beaten on their sex organs and that such beating can derail a girl’s psychosexual development.

A female has nerves in her buttocks and thighs that are connected to her clitoris. Those nerves can be stimulated during copulation. The impulses carried by those nerves can provide some of the stimulation that triggers an orgasm. During an orgasm, rhythmic contractions of her vagina can pump semen into her uterus, thereby increasing the probability of conception and eventually childbirth.

A female’s buttocks and thighs can be functionally involved in sexual intercourse and are therefore sex organs. When a girl is beaten on her buttocks or thighs she learns to associate violent physical assault with sexual stimulation. That learning will exist as patterns of neural connections in her brain. Those “aberrant” neural connections can later be manifested as psychosexual pathologies.

A parent or guardian or school teacher or school principal who uses a spanking paddle to beat a girl on her buttocks or thighs is probably not trying to teach that girl to associate violent physical assault with sexual stimulation. Unfortunately, that is the lesson that will be beaten into the neural circuitry of her still-developing brain. The people who wield spanking paddles should be put on notice that they are causing such brain damage. The implementation of my petition would provide that notice.

I have proposed that spanking paddles bear a permanent label that reads, “WARNING: Spanking causes brain damage.” When weighed against the damage that is caused by beating children with spanking paddles, my proposal is obviously reasonable.

The protection of children should be a very high priority for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Commission should approve my petition at the earliest possible time. And I request that you review my petition and allow it to be docketed as soon as you can.

Respectfully submitted, Scott G. Beach

cc: Todd Stevenson, et al.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-12 16:23:50

To Hal Stratton, Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Dear Chairman Stratton:

On February 10, 2005, I submitted a petition to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Todd Stevenson, the Director of the CPSC Office of the Secretary, sent that petition to Ms. Page C. Faulk, the Commission’s General Counsel. Mr. Stevenson subsequently informed me that Ms. Faulk will determine whether my petition “meets the requirements of a ‘petition’ and whether it will be docketed as a petition. The General Counsel has at least thirty days to make that determination.”

I have written to Ms. Faulk about my petition. I wrote, “I feel a sense of urgency about my petition and I hope that you will very quickly review my petition and allow it to be docketed as a petition.” I know that my petition has not yet been “docketed.” I therefore believe that it is technically premature for me to ask you to consider the merits of my petition. However, I feel the same sense of urgency today that I felt when I wrote to Ms. Faulk.

Earlier today I read CPSC press release number 02-215, dated July 26, 2002, and titled “Hal Stratton Confirmed As Chairman of U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.” According to that press release, you have two daughters who are now probably about 10 and 5 years old. And, according to that press release, you have said, “With two young daughters, I think of consumer product safety every single day.”

When you think about your own daughters and their safety, please also consider what happened to a schoolgirl in New Mexico. In an article titled “Dangerous Discipline,” Robert Fathman wrote about “a nine-year-old girl in New Mexico who giggled with her friends when she saw her teacher kissing a boyfriend.” For the offense of giggling, the girl “was held upside down by the principal of her school while her teacher paddled her. The little girl, who weighed less than 60 pounds, was hit so hard that the wooden paddle broke, but not before it caused a two-inch bloody gash that left a permanent scar on her thigh.”

Can you imagine your own daughter being beaten in this way? Can you imagine seeing blood running down her leg? Can you imagine taking her to a hospital emergency room and watching as a physician put stitches into her skin to close the wound?

I am opposed to corporal punishment. I believe that children should not be beaten with hands, fists, paddles, rods, straps, whips or any other implement. However, I am also a realist. In 22 of the 50 United States it is lawful for teachers and principals at public schools to strike students and to do so with various implements. So I am not asking you to prohibit the sale of spanking paddles. I am only asking you to put the users of these devices on notice that these devices can cause brain damage.

In previous centuries we could suppose that learning took place when a person’s metaphysical mind or supernatural soul underwent various forms of training and discipline (e.g., beating). However, now that we have functional magnetic resonance imaging scanners (f-MRI) we can see what happens inside a child’s head. And we can see how a child’s brain is damaged when the child is physically assaulted. In the light of this new knowledge, parents and educators should put down their paddles.

Please approve my petition at the earliest possible time. Please adopt a rule which requires that each spanking paddle shall have a permanent label that reads, “WARNING: Spanking causes brain damage.” I believe that this warning would make people think twice about the practice of beating children. And I believe that if they thought twice about it then they would choose not to do it.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

cc: Vice Chairman Thomas Moore, Page C. Faulk, Todd Stevenson, et al.

Scott G. Beach · 2005-02-13 17:16:49

Dear Vice Chairman Moore:

I have requested that the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopt a rule which requires that spanking paddles have a permanent label that reads, “WARNING: Spanking causes brain damage.” My petition is currently being reviewed by your General Counsel, Ms. Page C. Faulk.

I decided to submit my petition after reading Dr. Teresa Whitehurst's correspondence with CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton about "The Rod," an implement designed for the purpose of beating children. Dr. Whitehurst had asked the CPSC to ban The Rod. In his response to Dr. Whitehurst, Chairman Stratton wrote, "We will continue to monitor the data that we receive regarding this product. If that data indicate a change in the current status, we will immediately take appropriate action under our enabling statutes."

There may not be enough data about The Rod to justify a CPSC order to ban it but there is plenty of information about the use of spanking paddles. Parents, teachers and other people who have custody of children do use spanking paddles to beat children and the injuries that are caused during such beatings have been documented. Photographs of the buttocks and thighs of children who have been beaten with spanking paddles are posted at numerous sites on the Internet. For examples, see Mr. Colin Farrell's web site at corpun.com.

Some of the damage that spanking paddles cause to the posterior parts of a child's body can be photographed with ordinary cameras but the most serious damage is more difficult to visualize. This most serious damage can be seen with functional magnetic resonance imaging scanners (f-MRI). These scanners are able to detect the functional and structural damage that occurs in a child's brain when the child is physically assaulted. Facts about this kind of neurological damage have been published by Scientific American magazine. See "Scars That Won't Heal: The Neurobiology of Child Abuse," by Martin H. Teicher, Scientific American, March 2002, pages 68-75.

In previous centuries we could suppose that the injuries caused by a spanking paddle would heal. This was a reasonable supposition at the time because the contusions, lacerations, broken bones and other injuries to a child's posterior parts usually would heal. However, f-MRI scanners have now enabled us to see that beating a child can cause functional and structural neurological damage that is usually permanent. We must therefore reexamine the practice of disciplining children by beating them.

In 22 of the United States, teachers and principals at public schools can lawfully punish students by beating them. When the students of those schools are beaten, they are usually beaten with spanking paddles. I am opposed to this "corporal punishment" and I believe that it should be completely stopped. I also believe that if parents and educators were aware of the serious neurological damage that is caused by beating children then they would not perpetrate such violence.

I have requested that you require that spanking paddles have a permanent label that reads, "WARNING: Spanking causes brain damage." That label would put parents, educators, and other people on notice that beating a child with a spanking paddle is a destructive act. If people knew that beating a child with a spanking paddle could cause brain damage then they would voluntarily choose to refrain from beating children with spanking paddles. That would make America a better place for everyone because brain damage is a benefit to no one.

Please approve my petition at the earliest possible time.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

cc: Chairman Stratton, Page C. Faulk, Todd Stevenson, Teresa Whitehurst, Colin Farrell, Martin H. Teicher, et al.

A.J.Armitage · 2005-02-16 01:02:42

Laree Slack, 12, was beaten with an electrical cable in accordance with the Biblical prescription "40 lashes minus 1, times three." This did beat the living daylights out of her -- she died. See the details at http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2001/dec01/ … other.html

The JWs didn't know their Bible (big surprise there), the reporters didn't, and you don't. There's no "prescription" like that in the Bible, nothing resembling such a prescription, and, if you can follow basic grammer, not even a description of it. The description is actually forty minus 1 five times:

23Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

I underlined the part they mistakenly read together so you don't miss it.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with parental discipline. Furthermore, the "forty stripes" is a Mosaic reference. For GROWN MEN, the limit was forty. But the rabbis were worried the person administering it might forget to count one, so the maximum was set at 39 so that if it went over by one, it was still inside the Law. These were five separate occasions, of course, because doing five of them at once is well beyond what Moses permitted.

Just setting the record straight.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-01-31 10:15:17

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#52 2005-01-31 10:28:30

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#53 2005-01-31 10:34:38

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#54 2005-01-31 10:55:50

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#55 2005-01-31 11:14:37

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#56 2005-01-31 11:14:52

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#57 2005-01-31 11:25:46

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#58 2005-01-31 11:30:06

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#59 2005-01-31 11:38:45

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#60 2005-01-31 13:12:36

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#61 2005-01-31 13:23:41

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#62 2005-01-31 13:25:26

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#63 2005-01-31 13:28:10

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#64 2005-01-31 13:33:39

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#65 2005-01-31 13:55:02

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#66 2005-01-31 15:02:15

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#67 2005-01-31 16:26:20

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#68 2005-02-01 12:02:46

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#69 2005-02-01 20:37:45

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#70 2005-02-11 13:32:06

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#71 2005-02-11 13:34:08

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#72 2005-02-11 19:25:09

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#73 2005-02-12 16:23:50

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#74 2005-02-13 17:16:49

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#75 2005-02-16 01:02:42

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Board footer