Username:
Comment:

Check here

They call me V

So, it's the families 'right' to beat the children? Where, pray do tell, do you get that from, your ass?

All right. So when does this fabulous reasoning apply to homosexual families? You know, when a homosexual couple adopts children or at least tries to? I don't see you people respecting their rights to adopt or for their prospective child to have a home with them rather than being stuck in an orphanage. But you would support the right of a couple to beat their children if they were homosexual?

You are a hideous hypocrite.

TheLastCenturion

the family who beats their child are causing a helpless child(their own flesh and blood) physical harm.
taking away you "right" to beat your child guarentees the children the right to live in a safe, happy environment. it also has the dual purpose of allowing us to arrest people who DO beat their children, and after several years, once all the people who "oppose"(said with as much venom and bile as i can muster) the law have proceeded to ignore it and beat their children anyway have been arrested, children can finally sleep not fearing their vile, horrible parents.
I hope your child beats you within an inch of death when they are finally old enough.

Swede

The rights of the minority needs to be addressed first, as the minority is the most defenseless.
In this case that is the right of the child first, then the right of the family. The child has the right to not be physically or mentally harmed. The family has the right to take care of its offspring.

Filin De Blanc

What's the point of the child having the right not to be beaten by their parents if it's not actually possible for them to enforce that right?