You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If a child is physically able to walk into a busy street, they are able to consent to its effects therefore parents have no place physically restraining them.

0
0

[–] classy_nigger ago 

If you believe a child owns themselves. What is the alternative?

As I said, I believe that parent owns the child. A parent's consent, not a child's, is what matters in determining what a child may do by right.

0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Sorry, I had skimmed. Having now read it, it's a great argument.

I'm trying to figure out how it would be extended to define something like circumcision as a violation of the someday adult by the parents, even though they'd own the child when it's an infant under this view. It can't simply be that the adult dislikes what their parents did to them as a child.