Parental-rights arguments against school corporal punishment leave unprotected children of non-objecting parents

Evidence

The cost is that the argument for abolishing school corporal punishment, made on parental-rights grounds, rests on a contingent foundation: it protects children from corporal punishment only when their parents object. A child whose parents do not object — or a child who has no parents, or a child in care — is not protected by the Protocol 1 argument. The argument is parental, not universal. — , The Rod and the Child, 9210

Categorization

• QUESTION: This contingent-protection limitation recurs today — worth asking how modern prohibition regimes handle children whose parents consent.
• XREF: Connects to the CRC Article 19 thread that completes the parental-rights bracket, and to the series’ children’s-rights arc. — connects to: Religious liberty does not extend to imposing non-consensual harm on children — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7789; School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 9243; Adult-centric debate about corporal punishment systematically omitted children’s own account — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 9881 (+3 more)

Related

• School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings (similarity 0.91)
• Parents’ anti-corporal-punishment views qualified as protected philosophical convictions under the ECHR (similarity 0.87)
• Religious liberty does not extend to imposing non-consensual harm on children (similarity 0.84)
• Parental religious conviction does not override children’s bodily autonomy. (similarity 0.84)
• Children’s rights must be balanced against parental religious liberty. (similarity 0.80)
• The UN child-rights committee declared all corporal punishment incompatible with the Convention (similarity 0.80)
• The religious-liberty argument for corporal punishment is inherently evidence-resistant. (similarity 0.79)
• Adult-centric debate about corporal punishment systematically omitted children’s own account (similarity 0.79)
• Anti-corporal-punishment movements emerged independently within each religious tradition (similarity 0.79)
• Children’s fairness objection to hitting arises from moral perception, not cultural transmission. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings #expands (0.65) — , The Rod and the Child, 9243
• Adult-centric debate about corporal punishment systematically omitted children’s own account #complicates (0.60) — , The Rod and the Child, 9881
• Parents’ anti-corporal-punishment views qualified as protected philosophical convictions under the ECHR #contradicts (0.50) — , The Rod and the Child, 11175
• The discipline-abuse boundary reflects institutional social power, not empirical discontinuities in parental acts #complicates (0.50) — , The Rod and the Child, 10371