EPTOn May 06 2026 10:35 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I don't think you are as absolutist on those principles as you say you are.
Because if the government has absolutely no right to decide what to do with your body, and more importantly your child's body: A government would not be able to have laws on child neglect, and if we extend that principle to further extents filicide or selling them into slavery.
Sure, murder and slavery are themselves illegal, and I would think most countries have laws against neglect of a dependent even if not your child.
The problem here: death, for argument's sake, due to negligence (eg not vaccinating), is tantamount to manslaughter.
So you still have the problem of needing nuance. Unless your principle is actually that governments should not in fact be able to have laws against filicide or child trafficking (so long as it's the trafficker's child). Then, at the very least, when the actions of a person towards their body, or towards their children, break other laws, the government does (or at least should) have the right to stop that person.
The nuance required is what level of incompetence is criminal incompetence/negligence, and what level is just merely incompetence. If a parent believes, for whatever reason, their child does not need food, or air, or water, this is not going to fly in pretty much any jurisdiction as merely understandable limits of an individual's competence, this is going to be criminal negligence. So wherever we actually draw the line of what constitutes criminal negligence, your absolute adherence to principle doesn't really work in practice.
It still comes down to drawing a line on what is a parent's decision towards their child's health/bodily autonomy, and what's straight up neglect.
Maybe the problem here is, decisions made on behalf of a dependent child, are just not the same as decisions made on your own behalf. It's much easier to argue, that the government should not have laws against neglect of one's self or suicide (in fact, even I would agree with that). Having the same principle apply to dependent children is an entirely different thing.
I don't think you are as absolutist on those principles as you say you are.
Because if the government has absolutely no right to decide what to do with your body, and more importantly your child's body: A government would not be able to have laws on child neglect, and if we extend that principle to further extents filicide or selling them into slavery.
Sure, murder and slavery are themselves illegal, and I would think most countries have laws against neglect of a dependent even if not your child.
The problem here: death, for argument's sake, due to negligence (eg not vaccinating), is tantamount to manslaughter.
So you still have the problem of needing nuance. Unless your principle is actually that governments should not in fact be able to have laws against filicide or child trafficking (so long as it's the trafficker's child). Then, at the very least, when the actions of a person towards their body, or towards their children, break other laws, the government does (or at least should) have the right to stop that person.
The nuance required is what level of incompetence is criminal incompetence/negligence, and what level is just merely incompetence. If a parent believes, for whatever reason, their child does not need food, or air, or water, this is not going to fly in pretty much any jurisdiction as merely understandable limits of an individual's competence, this is going to be criminal negligence. So wherever we actually draw the line of what constitutes criminal negligence, your absolute adherence to principle doesn't really work in practice.
It still comes down to drawing a line on what is a parent's decision towards their child's health/bodily autonomy, and what's straight up neglect.
Maybe the problem here is, decisions made on behalf of a dependent child, are just not the same as decisions made on your own behalf. It's much easier to argue, that the government should not have laws against neglect of one's self or suicide (in fact, even I would agree with that). Having the same principle apply to dependent children is an entirely different thing.
I was clear about my lines and principles for when I think goverment should step in. Your post has nothing to do with that.
