The dishonesty of the Section 59 abolitionists

The NZ Herald reports on the last minute lobbying regarding the Borrows amendment on the Section 59 bill.

Chester accurately makes the point that the debate shouldn’t be about whether smacking worked, but about whether or not parents who smack should be criminally liable.

The way that supporters of outright repeal of Section 59 have tried to portray opponents has been very dishonest, and in fact reeks of the worst excesses of the US religious right.

Yes that’s right. For take the analogy to abortion. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion, as I am pro-choice when it comes to parents smacking. However in my personal lifestyle I would hope I would never be involved with an abortion or would ever smack a child of mine.

Now the anti-choice brigade for smacking have tried to portray opponents as people who supporting beating and hitting children.

This is intellectually just as dishonest as the religious right in the US trying to claim someone pro-choice on abortion “supports murdering foetuses”.