Are children property?

[Citizen James]

I have a pretty strong opinion in the direction of no, but I figured I'd bring it up for discussion.  Some parts of the parental notification thread (in particular the response of some Libertarians) surprised me a bit.   Is liberty only for those who have reached a specific age milestone?

Of course, there is the underlying (and more nuanced) question - how much control should parents have over their children?  In an ideal world parents would always have their childrens' best interests in mind - but this is not an ideal world.  There are bad parents, there are parents who are well meaning but endanger their children because of their specific beliefs (such as forgoing medical care), and there can be a values dissonance - do children (in particular teenagers) have a right to conscience - to believe what they will within the privacy of their own thoughts?   There is one question on the political compass test that I always figured would be a slam dunk ("It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents."), but I would guess by it's inclusion that some people think otherwise.  (perhaps that's part of why they rate me more socially libertarian than I consider myself to be).

Further, at what rate do children gain rights - is freedom of conscience innate, or something gained over stages of cognitive development?  I am curious how others here see this.

[Alexander Hamilton]

To radical feminazis, yes.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Children are not property, no.

[useful idiot]

Well I believe all human beings have certain rights (life, in the fullness of that word and therefore including health and safety, being primary among them), so no I couldn't see them as property in the traditional sense of that term. If children were property then I think you could make the case for human slavery quite easily...

[dead0man]

There is no perfect answer here, lets just get that out of the way.  Like abortion and the death penalty (and thousands of other things like this) there are good arguments to be had from both sides.  Are parents that teach their kids to fly as soon as the kid's feet can reach the rudder pedals endangering their kids?  What about parents that drive to fast?  Smoke in the car?  Let the rugrats eat Twinkies for lunch?  Go boating in the Indian Ocean?  Parents do sh**t that raises the possible danger to the kid from zero to something higher all the time.  And sometimes it's the other way around.  If a kid wants to play football in high school but his mom won't let him, is she trampling his freedom?  What if he wants a motorcycle?  Or to go rock climbing?  Or to move to Hollywood to "make it"?

Of course parents have the ability to harm their children in ways science doesn't even understand yet (much less the parents or the kids), but I think you have to give the parents the benefit of the doubt until they give us reason to think otherwise.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

     With that said, I agree with dead0man that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes outside intervention is beneficial, though it is up to the parent to set authority & the child to rebel against it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yay, a spat over libertarian theory. I love these things.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yay, a spat over libertarian theory. I love these things.

This isn't even about libertarian theory. We are not just talking about "Libertarian rights" but rather human rights in general.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals, like many other lifeforms. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

[Alexander Hamilton]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

So are some humans (including many "libertarians").

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

     Your assertion is rather arbitrary when viewed in light of the fact that we are animals, descended from the same single-celled ancestors as a lion or a zebra.

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

     You can suggest that this will be used to deny people their rights, but people get denied their rights anyway. Genocidal dictators & other racists tend to not be impressed by intellectual justifications, after all. They'll just allege their victims are not human & then come for you. Calling those rights human rights won't offer any extra protection against the people who intend to violate them.

[Alexander Hamilton]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

     Your assertion is rather arbitrary when viewed in light of the fact that we are animals, descended from the same single-celled ancestors as a lion or a zebra.

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

     You can suggest that this will be used to deny people their rights, but people get denied their rights anyway. Genocidal dictators & other racists tend to not be impressed by intellectual justifications, after all. They'll just allege their victims are not human & then come for you. Calling those rights human rights won't offer any extra protection against the people who intend to violate them.

They don't so it isn't... Interesting argument style. Rather ineffective, however.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

     Your assertion is rather arbitrary when viewed in light of the fact that we are animals, descended from the same single-celled ancestors as a lion or a zebra.

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

     You can suggest that this will be used to deny people their rights, but people get denied their rights anyway. Genocidal dictators & other racists tend to not be impressed by intellectual justifications, after all. They'll just allege their victims are not human & then come for you. Calling those rights human rights won't offer any extra protection against the people who intend to violate them.

They don't so it isn't... Interesting argument style. Rather ineffective, however.

     Which part are you referring to?

[Alexander Hamilton]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

     Your assertion is rather arbitrary when viewed in light of the fact that we are animals, descended from the same single-celled ancestors as a lion or a zebra.

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

     You can suggest that this will be used to deny people their rights, but people get denied their rights anyway. Genocidal dictators & other racists tend to not be impressed by intellectual justifications, after all. They'll just allege their victims are not human & then come for you. Calling those rights human rights won't offer any extra protection against the people who intend to violate them.

They don't so it isn't... Interesting argument style. Rather ineffective, however.

     Which part are you referring to?

First and third paragraphs.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Libertarian rights are held to be based on the fact of self-ownership. Self-ownership is rooted in cognition, something rather lacking in a fetus. Cognitive functions develop throughout life, though I cannot give a timeline of the development of rights or any such thing.

Oh, and who made that announcement? Bob Barr?

Libertarian rights are innate, natural, and inalienable from the moment of conception.

     Well the theory originated with John Locke as I recall, but that is neither here nor there. The implication that a fetus has rights whereas a dog does not is anathema to me, as it ascribes something special to the state of being human. However, humans are animals. The principle quality that sets us apart from a duck is our faculty for complex thought, something that a fetus obviously is deficient in.

An arbitrary assertion.

There is no limit then to who can be denied human rights, based on race, class, social status, or any other arbitrary judgment about when a human being deserves human rights.

     Your assertion is rather arbitrary when viewed in light of the fact that we are animals, descended from the same single-celled ancestors as a lion or a zebra.

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

     You can suggest that this will be used to deny people their rights, but people get denied their rights anyway. Genocidal dictators & other racists tend to not be impressed by intellectual justifications, after all. They'll just allege their victims are not human & then come for you. Calling those rights human rights won't offer any extra protection against the people who intend to violate them.

They don't so it isn't... Interesting argument style. Rather ineffective, however.

     Which part are you referring to?

First and third paragraphs.

     Well my main points from those remain that people are also animals, mainly separated by our faculty of critical thought & that the people who violate human rights will typically violate them with or without a philosophical justification. I did embellish them more than I probably should have, though.

[k-onmmunist]

They aren't fully conscious. While they may not be property, they certainly cannot be considered completely self-owning.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

no. but you should say that to the slave holders.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well let's see........I can throw my couch out for the garbage man .......can't do that to my kid (as much as I wanted to sometimes), so probably not.

What rights they have and acquire with age is another matter.


<<edit>> changed "kids" to "Kid".......lol.  Only have 1

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

Where are babies in that scheme? As far as I remember the best cognitive test we have remains mirror and babies don't fulfill it before 3 years.

[Deldem]

Legally, minors are treated as such. Just look at all the restrictions placed upon minors at schools.

I, however, do not believe this to be true. I think that at least older minors should be more empowered to make decisions. Why is my right to free speech impaired in school, while the state of Texas trusts in my ability to operate a motor vehicle?

So no, minors are not property. If you can comprehend the impact of your decisions, you should be allowed to make them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Fact is, I implicitly offered cognition as a standard. It doesn't mean that that cognition has to be at the level of musings on the evolution of existentialist philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre. Rather, I am positing that the ability to make any sort of value judgment or comparison is evidence of self-ownership. In other words, basically all human organisms are subject to enjoy natural rights except for fetuses.

Where are babies in that scheme? As far as I remember the best cognitive test we have remains mirror and babies don't fulfill it before 3 years.

     Kids younger than 14 months don't realize that objects that move outside of their range of vision still exist. As I said elsewhere, cognitive development is gradual, & I don't know the exact implications of that for this.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, it's just that in most of your posts you make the fetus the border of the self-consciousness, but as young babies hasn't much more self-consciousness as far as it seems, thus I wondered about their status in this scheme...