-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Legal definition of theft: Theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.Legal definition of property: property. n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property," which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personality"), which is everything else.The child was gifted this item. It was bought and given by the parent. If you really think it is theft to punish your kids by taking away things you gave them, then I suggest you take it up with the law.Kids can't and don't legally own anything without legal documentation of the parents saying they do.
Malarkey. Minors have a legal right to personal possessions, such as that which they acquire through purchase, gift, or trade, so long as those items weren't acquired through contract, which minors can't enter without a parent's cosign. So for example, if a 12 year-old minor is gifted an PS5 by a friend, then legally the parents have no ownership over it; if said 12 year-old uses a five dollar reward after helping a neighbor straighten out his/her garage to purchase sweets, then legally, the parents have no ownership over it. If the parents gift their 12 year-old minor a flat-screen TV, a gift being a legal transfer of property, then the parents no longer have ownership over it. And this is just analyzing it from a legal standpoint.
Laws and regulations don't even let kids have their parents' inheritance until they are 18 years of age.
Three guesses as to where I stand on that?
Yes, the arm does belong to the kid,
Good, we've come to an understanding.
but you don't want to use that argument
I'm already using that argument.
because I could say the same about the kid's life.
You could.
So is it morally right, and does the kid have the right to take his own life.
Yes. Every individual, minor or adult has the right to take his or her own life.
Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't argue that suicide is morally ok.
I would, but that subject can be discussed more in depth elsewhere.
What flawed reasoning?
Athias Post #66:
And if you're not conceding that the kid's arm belongs to said kid, then you're are tacitly suggesting that the kid's body belongs to his parents or the State. And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam. Because if the parents' or State's interests over an individual's body matter more or take priority, then you have no choice but to accept the logical extension of your premise which would even be maintained under circumstances where the State coerces these children or parents coerce their children into physical transitions.
Yes, this is exactly what parents can do. This is why we need good parents to RAISE good kids.
No disagreement, here.
This is wrong. This exact thinking is why our society is declining. People are thinking too hard into argument about why it's right for a kid to do what they want with their body, BUT ITS NOT. There is a reason that kids aren't allowed to drink, get tattoos, own guns, own property or businesses, or make medically life changing decisions, because if that was all legal, then most of the kids in the world, who have parents that don't care for or love them will not make it.
It's difficult to instruct kids on certain directives if the adults around them don't set a proper example. Personally, I don't think kids should drink, do drugs, or get tattoos. But you know what? I don't think adults should either. (My opinion is not affected by some arbitrary division.) With that said, my interests don't at all qualify or modify their right to behave their bodies as they see fit. Individual autonomy is fundamental to bettering a society. We are either individuals or subjects to the few.
Yes, THAT IS MY EXACT POINT.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly--your position is that a nine year-old experiencing the same unfortunate circumstances as Aron Ralston would be unjustified in amputating his/her own arm by mere virtue of his/her being nine years-old? What would the nine year-old be justified in doing under those circumstances?
If parents weren't legally responsible for their children, there would be a lot more child abuse than if they weren't your contradicting yourself.
Where did I contradict myself? Point out or reference the argument I contradicted.
This is just what happens when one parent is gone from the household.
I am by no means endorsing that parent's shouldn't assume responsibility for their children. My position is that this responsibility shouldn't be the consequence of coercion. Parents' time, labor, and resources ARE GIFTS, NOT DEBTS.
Yes, they are different, because if you have a kid who wants to chop off their limb when they are a child, then they are too scientifically immature to see the consequences,
How does science qualify one's capacity to bear interest over one's own body? Isn't the science angle just a red herring? After all, we are discussing the abstract, right? You're essentially trying to add credibility to your stance by employing some pseudo-scientific platitude. How many years of experimentation and lab trials did it take for my desires over my body to become legitimate? What about countries and cultures all over the word who have either a lower or higher age of majority than the United States? Did they ignore "the science"?
By the time that comes around, they will have learned years more experience about the world. If they don't learn, that's on either you the parent, or their ignorance. But there is a huge chance they will just laugh off how stupid they were when they were a child.
You're projecting.
Of course, your child is allowed to have interests
So long as those interests are under the parents' or State's command, relegating said child as property of the parents and/or State.
but since you as the parent love your child
One can love one's child and respect the fact that one's child's body belongs to the child.
you don't want them to hurt themselves
Then persuade your child against it. Thought experiment: if your child wanted to cut their arm off, what would you do?
Aron Ralston had to cut off his arm, because he would have died if he hadn't.
I'm going to presume that you didn't know who Aron Ralston was when you first responded to my statement.
He didn't just feel like doing that,
Never said that he did.
he had to sacrifice his body part to save something more important, his life.
Which was first and foremost, HIS DECISION. If he decided to stay and die because he couldn't bear the thought of experiencing the pain of amputating his own arm with a dull knife, then that would have been up to him as well. It wouldn't have mattered whether you or I thought it was justified. It only mattered what he thought. It's his body; his choice.
If you're going to use Aron Ralston to argue this, then that's a bad example.
It's actually the perfect example. It demonstrates that your stances are mostly opinionated. They're inconsistent, lack principle, and change with the circumstances.
"During adolescence, brains undergo continued growth, and different sections of the brain develop at different rates. The emotional centers of the brain, towards the middle and back, develop first. Maybe you’ve heard of the amygdala or hippocampus before — these are the areas of the brain that play a big part in how people feel and react. On the other hand, the front part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, is involved in reasoning and weighing decisions. Adolescents’ emotional centers mature before their decision-making centers. In other words, teen brains are programmed to have strongly developed emotional responses even as the part of the brain that interprets and calms those emotions is still actively developing."
Which among these sources DISQUALIFIES a minor's capacity to not only bear interests over his or her body but also retain priority over how his or her body is behaved?
