So human sacrifice to Satan is acceptable?
Mutilating the Child is perfectly acceptable, unless the child yells fire in a crowded theater?
There you go again, bending the focus back to child abuse, where there is little argument.
Child ownership stopped with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Perhaps you didn't know this?
Parents do not own their children any more.
Ahh... That's great. So since sovereignty involves independence, if my kid goes and damages someone's property, HE is liable for it, and not me. What a relief.
And in fact, you've talked yourself right in a circle - because sovereignty also involves self-determination, so if the child is sovereign, the child has the right and free choice to mutilate himself however he sees fit.
But in fact, the child is not sovereign. The child is a dependent. And that is where the argument lies. Historically, and traditionally, throughout all of history, that child is the natural ward of his parents, and of their larger family. The authority over the child rests in his parents. With his family.
Now, it is TRUE that the state has authority to breach that natural authority - To make the child a ward of the state in the case where the natural authority of the parents has grievously failed and endangered the child. But even in such a case, it should be that a formal charge be raised against them with evidence presented at trial, and a chance to challenge their accusers with a defense provided as needed. That is how it is supposed to go. Because the natural authority over the child rests in the parents, and not in the state.
Already now, that is not how it is going. I gave an example for the purpose of demonstrating the overreach of the state as it already exists... And when a stawart Conservative governor says there is another state overreach that is worthy of inquiry.
To extend your argument, to deny the natural authority of the parents and allow the state to become the 'sole authority' - which is Hutchinson's charge in this case - requires the admission that the child is first the ward of the state, above all others which is a very, very dangerous idea.
THAT is our disagreement, not the abuse.
They can't brand them. They can't beat them. What is magical about the boy's penis that makes it the special exception to a VERY clear rule: First, do no harm. Hmmmm?
Ancient superstitions aren't reason enough to hack at a baby's body parts. Get better superstitions.
Ahh... the hubris of modernity... The very same modernity that promotes this gender reassignment... What a conundrum that must be... And in defiance of the very God who legally endows your liberties. Be careful what you wish for. You'll wind up with a chain and a collar around your neck. But you can be assured, your big government will take good care of the children in your stead.