A contract’s a contract. The slave was not a party to the contract, nor was the child. What a crazy line to draw that it would be that protects the slave but not the child! And it wasn’t the 13th that first outlawed slavery — it was natural law, as the folks in the fighting to stop that improper contract knew.
Oh, please. A child is a party to the contract as both natural and common law state what you create, you have a right to control.
A child is a creation of its parents, thus they have legal control of the minor until he/she reaches his/her age of majority.
-----
it was natural law, as the folks in the fighting to stop that improper contract knew.
ROFLMAO!
A contradiction in terms, sir, as natural law does NOT operate under the auspices of might makes right.