sourmìlk wrote:Two things. First, at least in America, rights do not need to be explicitly codified. According to the 9th amendment, rights not codified in the constitution still exist.
Second, I'm not sure what definition of "right" you're using, but by all definitions I'm familiar with, if I am allowed to do something then I have a right to do said thing. If you'd prefer another word, then how about this: parents are able to legally exercise control over their children's bodies.
is a legal [government assured] or natural [philosophically universal characteristic (i.e. inalienable)] ability that cannot be removed or unduly restricted by law. I have the legal right to free speech. I also have the right to procreate, although it's not enumerated, thanks both to the concept of natural rights and
legally, thanks to the 9th amendment. I do not have the right to drive, although I am allowed to -- and if I screw up enough, that privileged is removed. In the US, I have the legally protected right to own a firearm and other legal restrictions cannot unduly
limit that right. I do not have the right
to buy an ATV; were they to be found unsafe, as their 3-wheeled predecessors were, they could be legally banned.
There is a monumental difference between the actions that I can do everyday and those that are protected rights which cannot be infringed. This is an astoundingly basic concept that you really need to understand before opening your mouth on these subjects. The incorrect
, albeit common, school yard-esque retorts conflating the two have no bearing on these concepts.
To clarify for you: The contention is that a parent is the default (but not exclusive) legal guardian (protector, executor) of the child's rights. This contrasts to your claims that a parent has the right to that child's body, and the child lacks any rights. In light of your misunderstanding of the concepts at hand, you may want to clarify.
However, If you wish to continue asserting that a parent is not a protector of the child's rights, but rather has the right to the autonomy of that child:
You may also want to consider that the state (acting as the arbiter of rights conflicts between individuals) routinely recognizes that there are things a parent can't do (i.e. beating a child, or to the extreme, killing a child) because it conflicts with the child's rights. Children are also (routinely, frequently) removed from the care of parents who are not caring properly for those children. So children most certainly do
rights. It's up to you to demonstrate the legal or inherent rational in a cohesive manner that explains the apparent dichotomy in your proposal that bodily autonomy is not one of them.
Keep in mind that the state's ability to override a parent's control of their child's body (by removing the child from the parent) without causing a constitutional challenge almost certainly indicates that your broad position is incorrect.