No, it shouldn't be acceptable or ethical. Parents who need to beat their kid to get their point across seem to lack parenting skills. There are many ways you can punish your kids without inflicting physical pain.
What disciplinary action should be used in the worst case scenario?
Depending on age there are many things you can do to teach your child a lesson, in teen years it's all about image, so embarrassing your child is a lot worse to them then actual beatings.
My parents used corporal punishment, and never beat us.
Um what? Your parents punished physically but never beat you? That's a confusing statement.
Most people realize there is a difference between a spanking and a beating.
And yes, sometimes a spanking IS necessary.
Unless you advocate parents being able to turn their "too stubborn" child over to the state.
Corporals must be punished.
If you love a kid it doesn't make much difference if you beat him or not. If you don't love a kid it doesn't make much difference if you beat him or not.
The problem is the assumption that you have to work out your frustrations by doing nasty things to some helpless creature that happens to be within your jurisdiction. That is the same mindset we apply to burglars, murderers, and teenagers. (It is a crime to be a teenager in this country.)
You are talking about assault and battery. In what cases do you consider assault and battery to be right or wrong? Remember that you are only talking about situations where one combatant is totally unable to defend himself. Not a fair fight at all.
Why does this question keep reappearing?
Why am I almost the only one with an opinion?
Why can't we have actual date/time stamps so I wouldn't embarrass myself by not recognizing a repost of a topic I have already commented on?