Re: Principles of: a)the Law ; b)Autonomy

"Actually, criminal harassment is generally limited to a situation where the victim has a reasonable fear for his or her safety, which I doubt would apply in the hypothetical case presented here."

### Surely all one would have to say to police to get a successful harassment charge against an antagonistic interloper is that they FELT REAL FEAR from the situation, especially if it was a relentless and confrontational hassling. And I do consider a complete stranger to suddenly intrude into my private affairs in a hostile manner AS being reasonable grounds for feeling a sense of danger, especially considering the amount of dangerous crazies, murderers and drug addicts about the streets these days. I mean, wouldn't YOU feel a sense of intimidation and danger if someone just came out of nowhere and poked their nose into your private business in a confrontational, relentless and hostile way?

"Both of which, I'm sure, are in the child's best interest. And now you're escalating to a murder charge. And no, there's no relevant defense here."

### Hen-Wen, I'm probably not going to start getting physically confrontational and pulling a gun on someone who just verbally confronted me, and if they continued I'd probably either leave or threaten to call the cops. But I WOULDN'T tolerate them starting to physically threaten me or my family. At that point I'm going to use any force necessary to protect myself from the scoundrel if he becomes a clear danger. And if things became out of control and I killed him, then I wouldn't go down for murder, my charge would be mitigated and I'd go down for SELF DEFENSE (if that's actually a charge?), and I would also have WITNESSES too to back up all my statements.

>"On the contrary, it says very little. Creating something does not imply ownership, nor does flesh and blood. One can create a work of art and sell it -- it then ceases to be one's own. One can donate a kidney to a friend -- you can't then call and ask for it back."

### Yes but keep the argument consistent. If one sells a piece of art or a kidney, then that's a transfer of ownership. Same as if I sold my sons or daughters to someone... from that point on, they would no longer be mine.

Maybe one could push the argument that life can have no economic ownership (and that's a philosophical debate which I'm not interested in going off on in this thread), but I do believe that all creatures have a sense of paternal or primordially animalistic ownership. And it's primarily THAT fundamental position I take in terms of what I mean about my "ownership" of my young. Ownership is not necessarily exclusively restricted to the realm of economics.

>"Likewise, the moment a child has matured to the point of developing her own identity, you have no further claim on her, your own flesh or no."

### I don't see this as "likewise". You were using the analogy of kidneys or art before and that once one has sold such items that these said items cease to be the property of the seller. Ok logical and good. So then, does "developing her own identity" constitute a SALE? Because your whole premiss seems to suggest this to me.

"At most, you are her protector and caretaker. You are *not* her master."

### Isn't this is a pretty self-righteous and pontificating statement? Well as I keep saying "To each their own". You raise your family your way and I'll raise mine my way, how does that compromise sound? I have created my progeny, I have fed and clothed and cared for them. I am their protector, caretaker AND master until they leave my roof.