Sure, a timeout is no fun but is it really going to teach the child a lesson? Eventually children will grow up and then be out in the world on their own and there is not going to be someone every step of the way holding their hand. Of course, there are going to be those parents who do abuse the fact that they can hit their children to discipline them and take it too far. But is child discipline was made mandatory there would be a specific definition to it and how parents would be allowed to use it. In the book Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, Denis Donoghue uses the term corporal punishment for the physical discipline of children and they way it is described takes away the abusive nature that physical discipline may sound like. They describe it as, “the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correcting or controlling the child’s …show more content…
Many people think that physical discipline will have bad effects on children later in life, when in actuality physical discipline will make children stronger by teaching them that doing wrong will have an actual consequences once they get into the real world, because timeouts are not going to get the point across. Physical discipline should be required of parents, because those kids being raised right now are going to be our future leaders. Whether children are spanked or not have a ripple effect on everyone else around them as well. Children who only receive timeouts are usually more rambunctious and misbehaved. Those habits will spread to other children and then when they become leaders of our country it will spread to the entire nation. Even though people may argue that using physical force on children for a method of discipline is abusive, it only becomes abusive when it is taken advantage of. Most children would probably be able to realize when a parent is actually hurting them or when a parent is just causing them discomfort by a slap on their