Yes, spanking works for disciplining one's children. Yes, this is a very sweeping, broad statement, and quite clear as well. Too many parents today seem to equate "spanking" with "abuse", and that is far from the truth.
In an age when "truth" can so often be relative, if not irrelevant, parents must use every tool at their disposal when correcting their children. Think back to when your parents disciplined you, and you will realize that the arsenal of tricks they employed was not particularly damaging, and certainly not abusive.
You might recall being told to do or not do something and you usually complied. Why? Because noncompliance would result in punishment, often a grounding, or being made to stand in a corner, or sometimes a spanking. Spanking was usually reserved for major infractions, such as running into the street, or stealing your brother's chewing gum. Very few children repeated an offense after a spanking.
Later generations were subjected not to a spanking, or even lesser forms of punishment, but were "talked to", in great detail, and it was explained why the infraction was wrong and why they should not repeat it. These children, who were faced with no real consequences, continued the adverse behavior even into adulthood. They learned nothing whatsoever. The spank is what emphasized the wrongdoing.
Does spanking work? You bet it does! When a child willfully disobeys his parents, he is doing so for a number of reasons: he may be "testing" them; he may just be feeling contrary; he may not give a hoot what the parents have told him to do or not do.
Imagine this: your boss gives you a directive; you don't "feel" like complying, so you don't follow through. Will your boss take you aside, discuss all the ins and outs of the project, and explain why it must be done? No, he most will likely will tell you to "do it", right now, or else. If you're still being contrary, you'll probably be fired. That, as an adult, is your spanking.
Children don't often have natural consequences for defiance; they may be in danger, in which case immediate action must be taken, but too often a parent who tries to "explain" reasoning to a child fails. This fails because a child does not reason well, if at all. Reasoning has no affect on rebelliousness.
"But how can I ever hit my child?" you may ask. Just as spanking is not abuse, neither is spanking akin to "hitting". A child is "hit" in anger: slapped across the face, kicked in the behind, beaten with a stick on his legs or arms. A child is "abused" if this continues and causes physical injury.
Spanking constitutes a paddling on the child's bottom, most often with a parental hand only. A spanking, again, emphasizes the wrongdoing and the consequences thereof. A spanking is done in a state of parental calmness, and no parent wants to do it; they simply feel it necessary to help correct the indiscretion.
Another question often posed by vehement anti-spankers is "but doesn't spanking a child when calm and not in anger, tell the child that his loving parent is capable of deception and even violence?" Nothing could be further from the truth. A spanking at this point merely tells the child that the parent has considered the infraction and has determined that this is the best course of action; the parent has not struck out in anger, but is giving the situation his full attention.
The final objection of anti-spankers is that children are taught to "hit" by being spanked; since spanking and hitting are two different things, this, too is false. Parents who choose not to spank, even an unruly youngster who would greatly benefit, are parents who prefer to be buddies with their children, not parents who wish to train and teach and prepare them.