Quote Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
All I can say is, if we are to agree on the latter, the parents' child will then be subject to the parents' whim, but if we are on the former, then individual rights on this matter are baseless and we would move towards a more conforming (in a Confucius sense) society.
I understand your concept of government as society's agent. The problem with that is those with power will always acquire more power until a more perfect democracy with greater checks on the government. I think a good example of this is the recent legislation in British Columbia, whereby a volunteer citizens assembly is selected for the sole purpose of drawing districts. But the minutia of governance is beside the point here. You say that a more conforming society would model confucian thought. Ideally yes. The problem is as I stated; power breeds power. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

So, then, in pointing out a problem, let me offer a solution. The power has to be decentralized in order to ensure proper checks and prevent consolidation of authority and consequent abuse.

Either way, would you disagree that individual liberty takes precedence until that liberty takes the form of cruelty?

Let's not go into Abortion here. It will only cloud up the perspective of possible participants.
I understand your point, but I find the issue linked. I think so long as the discussion keep the context in mind, then it is controllable. If the discussion focuses solely on abortion, then it is lost. My point is in relating the two opposite ends of the spectrum with total individual liberty at one end and total governmental power at the other. On one end parents may kill their children if they see fit. On the other hand, government can do what it sees fit with young life regardless of natural individual parental instinct.

The government has no right whatsoever in forcing values onto us, at least in the United States' form of social contract, presumably based on Locke's. However, applying to this case: is it right if those parents will instill racism, nazism, or whatever supremacy crap into a child because the children belongs in their authority? If not, who will replace them in choosing the values in which a child would grow up with?
It IS a valid question, deontological in so far as it questions the balance of morality between the individual vs. the state. And, again, I view the abortion issue as linked because the morality of infanticide and feticide is directly related to the question of state vs. individual control of parental obligation and choice. How can the government refuse the will to terminate pregnancy but allow corporal punishment? Or vice versa; how can the government allow the individual right to end fetal life but then prohibit corporal punishment? Why is death acceptable, but physical discipline is not?

Extending from this and speaking on the the parallel point here: Who is it then that determines values? I question whether religion is any different from social concepts of totalitarianism and intolernace when religion teaches us to exclude. Worse yet, I fear that an absence of religion is worse because if laws(values) do not come from God, then they are always only relative and therefore subject to change with impunity.