My classes weren't exactly for parenting, although large portions of certain classes were definitely geared that way. I was easily able to glean that my instructors disapproved of hitting though, and I consider it an iffy method at best. I never hear people ask 'are the severe problems that I've heard come from being consistent with my child true,' or 'will using a time out damage my child?' I do hear that about hitting though, so as far as I'm concerned, it would probably be less risky to use methods which aren't quite so questionable. Some people seem damaged by it. Some don't. But why take the risk if there's an alternative? I don't worry so much about being labeled an abuser as I do the effect spanking may have on a child. I'm also not questioning intentions so much as I am the outcome.

As for your other point, I do of course think that spanking a child is the lesser of two evils between it and the scenarios you presented. However, I don't see how lack of spanking automatically leads to those conditions? Many children who aren't spanked are disciplined in other manners and end up well off. Just so you know, I have also seen the problems which come from being overly liberal with one's children, and I know that oftentimes this lack of discipline fringes on neglect. There is a middle ground, and there are effective methods of discipline which don't involve hitting. They don't always come easy or naturally, but if the only alternative a parent feels they have involves hitting, I do think it would be beneficial to take the time to learn them. Just my opinion though.

Also, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted anything you wrote. It's pretty late here and I sometimes have trouble in that area.