Punishment versus correction. Freedom to bring up children as parents think fit versus community expectations laid upon them. Coercion versus persuasion. Parents' responsibilities versus children's rights.
These are all issues in the smacking referendum - though in reality the choices are not quite so stark.
Correction can sometimes entail punishment appropriate to the age, the child, and the behaviour.
If a child is in danger, coercion might be essential because persuasion would be too slow.
Parental freedom is not unbounded: a raft of laws covers neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, the use of force (at present banned if the purpose is correction), and educational obligations.
Responsibilities must include respecting children's rights, not least their right to be loved, nurtured, and have sensible limits set.
For those who believe in God, there is a further consideration: duty to God versus obeying the secular law.
The way they work through that will hinge on what kind of God they believe in, and especially on the way they view their Bible.
Is it God's absolute and unchangeable will in print, which would make the maxims that guided Jewish families 2300 years ago still binding on them?
Or is it a record of centuries of human striving to find answers to the biggest questions life poses, recognising that as knowledge expands and cultures evolve we are not only free but obliged to revisit the assumptions of the past?
On the referendum, I find it repugnant that people of the former view turn to the Bible to justify an emphasis on punishment, coercion, parents' freedoms - and smacking.
They point to a few verses in the Hebrew book of Proverbs which, they say, lay on them a religious duty to hit their offspring, quoting especially: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
The direction to use force is even stronger in the book of Ecclesiasticus, which appears in some versions of the Bible: "He who loves his son will whip him often, in order that he may rejoice at the way he turns out."
How, exactly? Bruised and broken? Fearful and cowering? What about the daughters?
A pamphlet of the Palmerston North-based Family Integrity organisation throws light on the stance of some smacking advocates.
Its author solemnly asserts that physical chastisement is necessary because children "are little bundles of depravity, and can develop into unrestrained agents of evil unless trained and disciplined".
The book of Proverbs convinces him that "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him".
So he advises: "Smack when the child manifests the foolishness of sinful rebellion, for smacking is a demonstration of our love."
Progressive Christians of all denominations will reject that focus on childhood sin, rebellion and whacking, along with the antiquated approach to the Bible on which it rests.
Those instructions on child-rearing hold as little authority for them as the requirement under Jewish law to put to death homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone who curses their parents.
That is because child psychology has come a long way since Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus were written, and the verses quoted are as wide of the mark as the observation of the great English pontificator-on-everything, Samuel Johnson:
"Children, being not reasonable, can be governed only by fear. To impress this fear is therefore one of the first duties of those who have the care of children."
Physical punishment could therefore be as severe as the parent thought fit: he cites approvingly a mother who whipped her infant daughter eight times before she was subdued.
Contrary to this appalling endorsement of child-beating, research suggests that while corporal punishment promotes short-term compliance, it is much less effective in helping the child to internalise positive values for the longer term which should be the parents' prime concern.
As a rabbi says, "It is praise that elevates the person one is trying to educate, extricates him or her from their current situation, and places them on a higher level than they were originally."
All this suggests there is more to the referendum than appears on the surface.
People should think carefully lest they vote in a way that would not only sanction the use of force against children but encourage the biblical fundamentalists, who would interpret a "no" vote as an endorsement of their position, flawed theology and all.
There is a more enlightened way forward, and despite the referendum's ham-fisted wording, a "yes" vote would promote it.
- Ian Harris is a journalist and commentator.
