Why do I need to do anything about it? It’s not my confusion, yours.
If you believe positive law comes first how is it that you are here on an AE forum?
Children having rights makes perfect economical sense. If you want your economy to have a healthy future.
If Spidey was economically capable of raping you, then according to your logic, he wouldn’t be violating your rights, correct?
Obviously, I wouldn’t have such rights.
In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child’s guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself.
In answer to the second, as I have already explained, rape implies reasoning abilities. As such, I will instead rephrase your question to “Is having sex with your child legally justified?” The answer is yes.
If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
The latter. Or rather, claiming that sex with a non-consenting child is a violation of that child’s rights in no way implies that all interactions with that child (anything a parent does) is a a violation of that child’s rights. I either have not yet formed an opinion on other interactions, or have not been asked specifics, other than bathing and bottle feeding, which I answered.
I see.
Please explain what is an “imaginary right.”
Blatantly false. A murder is no less a violation of rights because the murderer got away with it.
What is the difference between the powers that be declaring a murderer not-guilty and simply letting him walk away?
Why and how so?
Your rights are derived from another’s ability to judge you?
Did you arrive at this conclusion purely through logical reasoning, based on the principles of natural law?
Rothbard hiself said 'all right are property tights". i take away from this all human rights are rights of owners over that which is owned, i take from this that self-owners are bodies which have physical processes produce emergent mind phenomenon, and then these minds can own things, and they have a natural claim to the body the brain of which emerges them.
surely it depends on the child, specifically it depends on who owns the child. i.e. itself, which would lead to an answer of unjustified to all your questions above (this is under the assumption that the child did not consent to have those things done to it, though it is a logical possibility that it might in fact consent to have the first thing done to it, though the second thing is trickier, if the child always consented to have sex,that would render the notion of raping the child a nonsense/unintelligable.)
if the child does not own itself (because it was not yet a mind-having self-owner…i.e. the mindless-body does not teleologically own the body, there is no ‘person’ who could be violated. There is ‘no person’ to apologise to, no person that may have consented under the circumstance but contingently did not)
no. human is not being redifined. a human that is just tissue with particular dna that people call ‘human’ through its stages of development can think or it cant. the point is that morality is not a concept dependant necessarily on genes. genes are just the way nature (that we are aware of) has found to give rise to creatures that have minds. lets not get grandious and human centric and imagine that there arent other ways that minds can emerge… lets say that if they emerged, theses minds would own the bodies they emerged from, and would have rights. I am merely trying to emphasise correctly what moral agency relies upon. moral agency is not a human-only topic. it must consist in other features.
I understand pragmatic and dare i say it, utilitarian arguments for ‘guardianship’, but it undermines the rights of self-owners to homestead things that are found out here that are not yet homesteaded, and it undermines the rights of self-owners also, since it puts some of them (the young ones) in a subordinate relationship to the other (older)self-owners in the relationship, the ‘guardians’
Are you a child development expert, like a child psychologist? Regardless, I did say “probably does not”. Implying, I could be wrong.
So you don’t think it has anything to do with their intellectual development? You think that baby is going to get up to the stand, and when the prosecutor asks the baby, “can you point to the person that raped you?” that the baby will point to her father?
Or if a 3 year old gets up on the stand, you don’t think the toddler would on the one hand point to the father when the prosecutor asks her to and on the other hand withdraw her accusation when asked by the defending attorney?
Can you prove it?
Nothing. Either the accused did not commit the crime or there was a miscarriage of justice.
And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how that helps parents decide when they have violated a child’s rights.
Parents own their children until the children reach the age of reasoning. As such, the parents can legally do whatever they want to their children until that point. I am not sure what you mean by “natural law”. If not, and children have rights, then when does a parent know the child’s rights have been violated?
So what? If you cut out a person’s tongue and cut off the person’s hands, it no longer becomes rape? WTF?
That’s self-evident.
So what? Try again.
I will answer your question when you provide a satisfactory answer to mine. Period. You will not have an answer until then. You are the one claiming that somehow, it magically becomes rape upon the ability to reason. You need something more.