The appropriate setup of a spanking ban (defining child abuse wisely and in a streamlined manner)

Apparently, some people think that I no longer support a legal ban on corporal punishment. I am the subject of a pedophile screening, and many of them became pro-spanking at the end of the thread of responses. However, I am emboldened to help this movement ban spanking. That legal change is, in fact, the number one goal of legislative achievement. We aren't a whole bunch of pedophile haters, but a bunch of folks in a neighborhood full of quaint homes in the middle of the county, wishing to isolate itself from the pedophile debate. We care more about that your child was harmed by abuse, dear parents. Calling everyone else "the pedophile" is mighty suspicious behavior here. From night to day. We hate parents here at children's rights, meaning all who identify, and all who identify by entitlement and abuse. Parents are the ones who abuse children, with the excuse being "I have too much on my plate".

What should be the law enforcement strategy for policing the parents? Pro-social ransack, pro-social bloodshed, pro-social counting squares, pro-social mass arrest. Upon the passage of a spanking ban into law, with such being signed by the governor, all pro-spanking homes reported by mandated reporters (when a child says something) and ordinary concerned citizens. Then, on the last day, CPS parcels, guarded by SWAT teams with machine guns, would break down the door. The children would be removed first, and taken somewhere safe, and the parents would be held hostage, with strangulation used as enforcement techniques to pry out a confession. The goal? A traumatic temper tantrum of "I'm sorry that I have wronged my child".

What is the definition of child abuse, under our founding Christian family values. Entitlement leading to theft, meaning wanting things from a child, leading to seeking to impose said item onto a child, through anything that the child perceives as abusive, threatening, or uncomfortable, meaning that reflects entitled intent. If you can easily explain away a child's upset, by way of apologizing genuinely and explaining good intentions to the child at their level. If a parent cannot apologize for the abuse committed against their child.

Anything that the child deems as abuse objectively is, if not from objective codified statute, than from objective morality itself. Once enacted into law here in Pennsylvania, a child would have to simply perceive abuse and offense from my behavior, and I would be guilty of endangering the welfare of a child and summary harassment. Right now, the harassment statute (18 Pa.C.S. §2709). Most children, I predict, would simply want a third-party intermediary to stop the abuse...I'm all for restorative options, but I don't want ton give any credence to the parent enemy of movement.

LET PARENTS BURN! Meaning all who identify, meaning all who identify by entitlement or abuse. Count me in with the carnage if I ever defend harming or abusing a child.