If smacking is assult, then so is innoculation

Several times throughout the early years of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before a nurse, and have a sharp thing stabbed in his arm.  It hurts like anything, and the child cries.  The child's mother stands by, watching, and then comforts the child once the process is completed.

This is called innoculation.  The child will be unhappy about this.  The reason it is done, is because it will help the child in the long-run, making his immune system much stronger, and able to resist dangerous diseases that would otherwise kill him.

Several times (admittedly, a few more) throughout the early year's of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before his father or mother, and experience the sting of a smack on his hand or his bottom.  It hurts, probably not quite as badly as the innoculation, and the child cries.  The child's parents comfort the child, and the ordeal is over.

This is called smacking.  The child will be unhappy about this.  However, the reason that it is done is that it will help the child in the long run.  It will part of the parenting process that will help to make his heart much stronger, able to resist dangerous situations that could otherwise kill him.

What is the difference?  Both processes involve pain on the child's heart, and empathy on the part of the parent.  One process is for the betterment of health, the other is for the discipline of the child.  If smacking is assult and violence, then so is innoculation.  And we can say that this is Government sanctioned abuse of children by way of violent assult.  This is the language that the repealists are using.