Well, on the one hand, yes, we do.
"But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom." - Rand Paul
On the other hand, just because you may kill and eat cattle if you own them, it in no way follows that you may kill and eat children if you own them. Under California law you may kill cats and dogs if you own them, but you may not eat them. South Australia has a similar provision. There's really very little stopping legislators from making arbitrary distinctions to their hearts' content apart from the odd constitutional protection and their anatomical lack of hearts.
Yes, the arbitrary distinctions that the legislature has made makes my rhetorical flourish merely poetic rather than factual.
Nevertheless, Rand Paul does think parents can own their children. Also, we do know how people have treated sentient beings they own: for example, pets and slaves.
I guess a good follow up question is: do owned children have at least the rights afforded to pets or slaves?
