You're argument boils down to this:

1. The children are not society's.
2. The children are not mine.
3. The children are the parents'
4. Given they are the parents', they have the responsibility and right to care for them.
5. This right includes however they see fit.
5. If it kills them, injures them, maims them, oh well. Too bad.
6. "wanks furiously to freedom."


Your ethical argument recognizes no restrictions on parental authority of care. You assume that, because parents are the primary caregivers, and because the children are theirs, not society's, they have ultimate authority over them sans any accountability. This is demonstrated by your statement that parents can deliberately fail to treat their children's health problems, thus killing them, and that's perfectly okay because "they can choose to treat them as they see fit." If because of stupidity, malice, or ignorance, they choose not to treat, say, the measles, because it's against their religious views, they can freely kill or horribly disfigure their kids via parental right. This is ludicrous and ethically bankrupt.

Moreover, the logic of your argument leads to further absurd conclusions. If we accept the premise that parents can deny simple medical care to their children "because they feel like it," there's nothing to stop them from applying the same reasoning to feeding their kids and other types of care. For example, we should also allow parents the unrestricted right to choose how to nourish their children, even if it means starving them on "special religious diets." If they can kill them due to lack of medical care recommended by doctors, I don't see why they can't also starve their kids to death against the recommendations of nutritionists! After all, they aren't MY kids, so what do I care, right?! Maybe they believe prayer will feed their kids, so we should just sit by and watch as they starve to death. Great idea. But yea. My views are so atrocious. How DARE I limit parents' right to exercise life and death over their kids like they are disposable property.

The only difference is the in type of activity, not in the nature of the results OR the logic used to defend them. If you are prepared to argue that parents have the freedom to kill their children by neglectful medical care, they also have the right to kill their children through neglectful feeding, bathing, or hygiene. You clearly fail to understand the purpose and nature of ethics, instead choosing the Libertarian "me me me mine mine mine freedomwank" Libertarian ideology, where killing kids through incompetent, neglectful parenting is okay behaviour. Absolutely heinous. It's all the worse that you couch your ethical deviancy with horsepockey philosobabble about "freedom" so it sounds better.


Just be honest. You favour allowing parents to kill their children through incompetent, neglectful behaviour.

__________________