5 ms·

You’re kidding right? The fact that parents are legally required to care for their children for 18 years throws a wrench into the theory that the freedom of par

You’re kidding right? The fact that parents are legally required to care for their children for 18 years throws a wrench into the theory that the freedom of parents is paramount. I don’t think there’s any precedent in culture or our legal system that puts freedom of parents at a higher priority over well being of children - nor should it. Children have no choice whether they are brought into the world, potential parents have full volition. Thus morally it is perfectly fair that the party with zero choice - the children - are protected.

AlexandrB 8y ago
> The fact that parents are legally required to care for their children for 18 years throws a wrench into the theory that the freedom of parents is paramount. Except they're not. It's called adoption. > I don’t think there’s any precedent in culture or our legal system that puts freedom of parents at a higher priority over well being of children - nor should it. I just listed several including divorce and the freedom to choose to vaccinate (or not). I never said that the freedom of the parents is paramount, but it's also not fully subservient to the child's wellbeing. It's a balance. And my larger point is that mandating that someone go through a painful and potentially physically scarring natural birth for a dubious improvement to the child's development does not make the grade by this standard.