Ah yes, “God did it”, of course…
Yes, as imagined himself in Himself, through Himself and with himself.
Like I said… I never felt owned by my parents, but I did by the education system and school, so we may belong to our parents but be indebted to a system that we will all later on become instrumental in fostering societal progress for.
Where you see and say ownership, I see and say belonging to… do we say ‘who owns this child’ as opposed to ‘who’s child is this’? but I guess that both those terminologies boil down to the same thing, in that children are not independent of their parents.
If I don’t own myself, will someone come along and try lay claim to me? lol. As an adult, I am responsible for and in control of myself. I am possessed of myself, I possess myself… a jinn unto myself.
I don’t think the word ‘own’ is correct.
They are responsible for that child.
They can order the child to do certain things, though there are limitations, even there.
That’s not ownership. They can’t sell the child.
A slave could be sold.
You can burn your property. You can’t burn a child.
And so on.
How can a child be “yours” if you don’t own him/her?
To be “mine” or “yours”, necessarily implies and signifies ownership. You, along with most others here, can try to deny it. But that’s not the way people act/think/feel/say. To say something is “yours” or “mine”, is to demonstrate and prove ownership. Furthermore, humans are bought and sold, trafficked, traded, etc. Just because these actions are taboo, doesn’t mean they’re not reality. To take a child, from his/her parent, is to take ownership. Conflating the term with “Guardianship” does little to ‘justify’ the nature of the relationship.
Most human beings, apparently not reflective of this forum, do feel possessive and responsible for their ‘own’ biological children, and therefore, do Own them, are Owners of them.
Here’s the ‘taboo’.
Westerners, especially Americans and Liberals, don’t like the idea of “owning” people. But the common-sense, Reality, is, that parents ‘own’ their own children, and people ‘own’ their own bodies/minds/souls. To suggest otherwise, puts the burden-of-proof upon you, not me. You need to argue and prove your case, convincingly, if you honestly believe “nobody owns anybody, not even their own selves”. Because I doubt any human being actually thinks this way, actually believes it, with exception to “God did it”. Maybe that’s your position too. But it’s a weak one.
The “Western” (U.S. American, Post-modern, Liberal) conception of “Ownership” has a blind-spot, when it comes to human beings.
People, by common sense, know what Ownership is, the difference between Private and Public property. People will even admit, that people “own themselves”, insuchthat it is your body, and so your “Right” to do with your body and yourself as you see fit. This is a necessary aspect of Freedom and Liberty. But to convey ownership, of one person over and above another, is flagrant and denied. Thus the same ones espousing such freedoms, liberty, “rights”, justice, etc. will conveniently ignore and deny the matter, when it comes to common sense, such as a parent ‘owning’ his/her own flesh-and-blood child.
As-if a mother does not in fact own her own child??? Ridiculous.
It’s also clarified here, immediately, how many of these responses, how many here, are childless, and do not have their own children. Because if you did, or someday wanted to, then you would be forced to admit to Nature, Instinct, Reflex, which is the possession of parent to child. Children are the property of their parents, the most vital and important one of all.
I’m not childless. I own things not people, not even my child. I have exclusive rights in relation to my child, but that does not mean I own him. (that was one of you implied but not actually written out ideas and it doesn’t work).
Here’s what i notice. Instead of actually responding to anything I wrote, you just make statements and assumptions. Try to fucking sell your kid. I can sell everything I own. Everything. I can’t sell my kid, legally or morally in relation to society. It’s not an ownership issue.
Ownership:
Things or ideas. Not people.
Property is what is owned: property is
People are precisely not objects in modern law.
I own a doll, I can legally rip it’s head off. I cannot do that to my child.
I can sell the doll.
People can even buy dolls to have sex with. They can sell that doll for an hour to some other guy to have violent sex with it. They go to prison and even in prison culture get killed if they do that to a child.
Even murderers and rapists know the difference between a doll and a child. The former being an object, the latter not.
I notice this with posters like you. Instead of actually interacting with other people’s arguments - you know, doing the work of philosophical or intellectual interaction - you just spout your position, throw in assumptions, and seem to think this is a response. Nice appeal to incredulity in the middle there about mothers not owning their children.
The holes in your ability to think and discuss ideas with other people are glaring. Smugness built on nothing.
I can take a hammer to every single thing I own, by right, in the law. Ownership is a legal term for our relationship to
THINGS!!!
OBJECTS AND THE LIKE.
The mother you barf your incredulity around does not have to worry about anyone else owning her child. She and the father have rights, legally in relation to that child. But they are not ownership rights.
You’re still a boring ass who can’t argue his way out of a paper doily.
Or, actually, perhaps you can. You seem intelligent. But you either don’t understand what an argument or counterargument is or you are too lazy or scared to make one.
Your posts are simply self-congratulatory assertions. No argument in sight. No counterarguments, just judgments of other people’s arguments.
And the fact that you don’t even seem to realize any of this makes me think you are likely scared to interact with ideas and make actual counterarguments.
Cowardly shit. I mean, cowardly shit.
We don’t have the language in English unless you want to explain thinks awkwardly such as “the birth mother of the birth mother of the birth mother of me” to refer to “the great grand mother of me”… it all sounds cold and clinical and people look at you funny. Trust me, I’ve tried this! Things are not easy in English when you do this. I can just say “mother”. “Mother of what? You or someone else?”
English is a language that has never allowed for the expression of people as not being possessions … “my mom”. “My child” “my husband”. Etc…
It’s a childish way to see the world and people, exceedingly immature. Our culture is exceedingly immature.
Oh okay, so if your child is kidnapped, you can’t complain about it, since you don’t own your child. Interesting. See, this is the “common sense” factor that I mentioned. Most people, most human beings, know that if your child is kidnapped, your property taken, that this is a problem. But since your children are not your property, (they are nobody’s?) then you shouldn’t have a problem with that?
So you have to be able to sell something, otherwise it’s not ownership? Very interesting…
So… you don’t own yourself? I’m guessing ‘No’, in theory, but ‘Yes’, in action.
This is further argumentation that “you don’t own yourself”. Well, I disagree. I do own myself. Maybe I’m unique. Let’s find out, how unique though?
I was under the presumption that most people, do own themselves, are in-control of themselves, are responsible for themselves… seems like I might be wrong?
So if you mutilate and sell your child, this proves ownership?? Very interesting, I’m learning so, so much, from this thread. Thank you. You’re proving how necessary and insightful this can be. I didn’t know that you had to destroy or sell something, otherwise you don’t own it?
Yikes, these are some giant leaps of logic. Mutilation, selling people, sex, you’ve introduced a lot into this notion of “Objectification”. Maybe that’s your intention. People aren’t “Objects” (says you), yet humans objectify each-other everyday. What else is claim to ownership and property, except this “Objectification”? That doesn’t mean that, somehow, parents are immune, or that you don’t act as though you do in-fact ‘Own’ your own child or body. Maybe, just maybe, you really believe the nonsense and garbage you just spewed. I really don’t know, but it’s sick and twisted, either way.
Imagine people walking around who …don’t own themselves …don’t own their own children …have no possession of self. Again, I could be wrong, seems like I am. At least, my perspective is the minority already. I was under the presumption, again, that most people own-themselves and own their own children. As-if an infant, child, or teenager can be picked-up off the street, and anybody can lay-claim or ownership of him/her. “Nobody can own anybody else”? That’s not quite true, nor accurate. People have before, in the past, so what changed?
Furthermore, therefore, is it really true, that today nobody owns themselves, or to do so, would be to “Objectify yourself” as you implied? Is this even possible, existentially? How can somebody “Objectify him or herself”?
Urwrong,
The very fact that your child can be kidnapped or you can be killed by another, means, by definition! That you don’t own your child or yourself… ownership as a “god given right” means that these things are impossible! By definition!
Kidnapping means that a person has stolen the possession of a person.
Again… I thought these were common sense, but it never ceases to amaze me around this forum.
Again, The English language does not have very sophisticated language for this concept. If you can possibly be killed, does that mean you actually own yourself?
If you can possibly be kidnapped, that doesn’t mean parents own you… it’s the idea, again, that you don’t own yourself.
Well… ‘parent and therefore legal guardian‘ as opposed to just ‘legal guardian‘, as the latter involves paperwork, bureaucracy, and going through much red-tape… the former, doesn’t… unless you want to count the signing of the birth certificate. that is?
Grown people are indeed bought and sold… are they promised a better life? are they stolen? is it a hoax? do some go willingly, out of desperation for a better life? Could be all of the above, but owning ourselves doesn’t always seem to work for many.
Have you heard me mention god as true? I thought my position on gods and religion was clear to all here? No?
time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/ watch the video… doctored news? fake news? part-fake news?
What of when children are homeless, have no parents, are unwanted, or sneak out to do grown-people things… as in Rotherham? Is this real? Is this a hoax?
I shall ask my mother if she thought/felt like she owned me… I recall she did / I recall I didn’t, but I weren’t put up for sale, stolen, molested etc., but I do recall a disturbing attempt of the unknown kind on my person, right outside my front door, when 9.
Is a sister considered a legal guardian?
No. An older sibling could possibly become a legal guardian of his/her younger siblings, for instance if their parents were incapacitated or died. … A legal guardian would be someone appointed through the court to care for a child. This could be anyone, not necessarily (and not usually) a sibling.
Family are the custodial-authority, by default.
D/p
Listen… when you say something or somebody is “yours” or “mine” …these words mean Ownership.
You can deny it all you want. And this thread is proof of the denial. It doesn’t change the fact, or common sense.
“Yours”, “Mine”, My Child, all signify Ownership, Property, Possession. You can claim that “humans are subjects and cannot be owned”, but it doesn’t change the human relationship.
Karpel, when somebody kidnaps your child, then you are distraught and maddened, because it is “your child”. Because you own your own child. That’s why. That’s the reason. That’s the cause.
No amount of linguistic jump-roping and hula-hooping is going to get you out of it (Ecmandu), Mr. English-Language-Is-Not-Good-Enough. Yes, it is. It describes and directly signifies, the exact relationship.
If anything, human beings, and animals too, are most possessive of their progeny, and “own body”, than anything else. It is most paramount, not least, as you all have tried in vain to counter-argue.
I own my parents. 
So what is the alternative, in case of children - their parents do not have responsibility for them, no right to compel them to say, stay in the house at night…
the idea is that a parent has responsibility for and some command over a child as long as the child is not capable of taking care of itself.
Its a rule based on pragmatism rather than deep moral contemplation. But I don’t think any law says that children are literally property of their parents.
I agree in partial approbation of responsibility as the child grows older, they a say.e more responsibility for their actions, as expected from them, except in cases where their growth does not align with their development.
Then, the causes for this need to be looked at, from increasingly deeper levels. And this.procedure of analysis can come to a block, bolted by a dead lock, which primarily can appear as impenetrable iron clad.
Same 
They did my bidding… not vice versa.
You’re talking about a symbiotic relationship here, but most aren’t like that… most don’t give a fuck, and so I think I, and some, are past caring.
I’m not in denial, I just prefer the term ‘belonging’ to ‘owning’. We own what we buy… we didn’t buy our partner or our child… we attracted the former and then made the latter.
…that of belonging? ; )
I’m most possessive of my mind/my brain… it Lords itself over me, and so I take control, of It.