XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
      
   "Ivan Gowch"  wrote in message   
   news:75nhtvo0ev2788a5ok6bvve9i71qra4q48@4ax.com...   
   > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:23:37 GMT, "Daniel T."    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > ==>The best way to prove the above wrong is to go to a park and find a   
   > ==>child willing to go home with you. Then see how much trouble you get   
   > ==>into because you took someone else's property. The same thing doesn't   
   > ==>happen if you find a girlfriend or even wife to go home with you,   
   > ==>because she doesn't belong to anyone... Children are property.   
   >   
   > Bullshit.  In no sense of the word are children   
   > "property."  They may be in their parents' legal   
   > custody, but they are persons, with rights that   
   > are wholly separate and distinct from their   
   > parents'.   
   >   
   > If you don't believe this, try breaking your kid's   
   > arm, and see how the law treats assholes who   
   > treat their children as "property."   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > --   
   > You are the one who said they were property.   
    I was pointing out that they are not property in the full legal definition   
   of the word. Pay attention!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)