[nilespotter]

> crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives.

Ah yes, those monsters

[solid_fuel]

James Dobson made a career advocating for child abuse including physical abuse for “strong willed children”. Somehow it’s never Focus on the Family that these people want to ban.

[margalabargala]

The US fought a whole war with itself over whether people should be allowed to own other people. They shouldn't, we decided, except on certain circumstances.

Some parents, finding themselves owning a child, decide to push the boundaries of what they get to do with their possessions to the point that it runs afoul of other laws against how humans treat one another.

[frumplestlatz]

Conflating parenting with slavery and ownership is not only a category error but an offensive one. Parental authority isn’t ownership; it’s a duty to safeguard children’s developing autonomy and vulnerability.

Pretending otherwise betrays an indifference to children’s actual welfare, and a disturbing form of motivated reasoning deeply concerning in its implications.

[esafak]

I would not call that a decision; it was the victor's dictate.

[gjsman-1000]

That’s idiotic; as the amount of control parents are allowed over their children has never been lower compared to historical norms. We’re at the point a minor can get an abortion without parents being informed; which would have been unheard of and unthinkable 50 years ago, let alone the idea that a government would even mandate leaving parents unaware of a sexually active child. That idea didn’t even occur to the most rabid of socialist dreams.

[rtkwe]

If it weren't so often about denying them medical care or a proper education or about their ability to abuse them in various ways I'd be more sympathetic. Kids have rights too their parent's don't own them to get to violate their rights just because they're their kids.

[john01dav]

Children are human beings who need growing autonomy as they mature, not property of parents. I have several (adult, to be clear) friends who have suffered serious damage due to overly authoritarian parenting.

[sarchertech]

I agree kids need growing autonomy. Not unlimited autonomy though. The law clearly recognizes this.

Kids can’t sign contracts, I’m liable for damage caused by my kids, I go to jail if my kids skip too much school etc…

[roenxi]

In legal terms, children aren't full humans. They literally don't have fully formed brains and there isn't an expectation that they can make decisions that consider the consequences of their actions.

In the sense that a phrase like "growing autonomy" doesn't really mean anything, sure they should get that. Practically, they shouldn't have a lot of autonomy. The concept of childhood education is largely predicated on the idea that children have no idea what is going on and someone else should be inculcating knowledge, values and beliefs in them while making long term decisions on their behalf. And there is a pretty good argument that those values and beliefs ought be aligned with their family.

[gjsman-1000]

Really? Now do the math on all the kids harmed by overly lax parenting. Many of them are literally dead.

[Braxton1980]

They are monsters because of what they will do to obtain their goals.

[Avshalom]

I mean yes, treating children as property that you control rather than people you are obligated to care for does make you a monster.

[frumplestlatz]

Guardians with a duty of care necessarily exercise control. That's not ownership, it's responsibility.

[hyperadvanced]

Evil little fuckers. Who even thinks that the US Federal Government isn’t totally qualified to be in complete control of their children’s education and lives, anyway? Probably some racist Ruby Ridge types (/s)