>> >Well you better get that level of stress just right: the recent Society
>> >Neuroscience meeting suggests that childhood abuse (emotional not
>> >may lead to permenant brain damage:
>> >ciao, patrick
>> >Patrick Wilken
>> >Editor: PSYCHE: An International Journal of Research on
>> >Secretary: The Association for the Scientific Study of
>> I have long suspected this to be true. It led me to wonder . . . If we
>> confirm this and it becomes accepted as fact, will verbal and emotional
>> abuse be punishable by the same laws which deal with physical abuse?
>> I used to work in a domestic violence shelter and it seemed odd to me
>> that someone could be arrested and jailed for beating someone but
>> there was no penalty whatsoever for verbal/emotional abuse. Would
>> you have to have a way to verify that neural damage had been inflicted?
>Did you know that sneezing causes permanent brain damage? If this is so,
>there no laws punishing people who give other people their colds, flus, and
>pneumonias? How about holding parents responsible for giving their children
>predispositions for allergies? C'mon, people pull your heads out.....
Excuse me? I was referring to people who have an *intent to harm* and you
counter with examples that are innocuous, incidental, or unintentional? I
read and enjoyed your posts and know that you can make a more rational argument than that if you really think my head is up....
A better example might have been, what about a person who dumps their partner cause they're mad at them and this throws the partner into a deep depression? Harm was intended and harm was done. Is it the perpetrators fault? or was the partner predisposed? You'd probably never figure this one out.
I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but I don't think that adults
maliciously inflict emotional abuse which results in brain damage to children
should be considered non-criminals simply because you can't see the bruise.