Comparing the absence of getting a vaccination (a non-act) to the act of genital mutilation is comparing apples and oranges, IMHO.
Many nanny-staters believe that male circumcision is a barbaric act. I tend to agree, but not to the point where I think myself entitled to make the parents' choice for them using the law.
The same goes for physical discipline of children. I think it's entirely appropriate in the vast majority of cases, although it can obviously be abusive in others. That doesn't mean it should be banned altogether.
Thus, my concept of Liberty is far from absolutist.
As for the smoking analogy, it's undoubtedly a fact that many parents smoke (tobacco or whatever) in the presence of, or near enough to, their children. While this may not be good for the children anymore than feeding them happy meals from McDonald's, it does not rise to the compelling level of what would constitute actionable child abuse.
The same is true, IMHO, for vaccinations, or home-schooling, for that matter. Parents should enjoy significant leeway when making such choices on behalf of their children, even if their choices go against the grain of what society thinks is proper.
As for the name-calling accusation, I am simply calling a spade a spade. Calling you a nanny-stater was based on your apparent position with respect to mandatory vaccinations. That is entirely different than branding someone an idiot or moron simply because they disagree with you on a political issue, or because they fail to give almighty science its due reverence.
Finally, as for the Muslim act of clitorectomy, there are many such things prevalent in various cultures, whether it be putting metal rings around children's necks, or bone plates in their lips, and so on, all of which result in permanent disfigurement of one kind or another. As distasteful as I may find such practices, I'm not at all sure they should be criminalized. Why? Because the state doesn't own people's children, and permitting the state to usurp parental sovereignty is an extremely perilous and slippery slope.
One aspect of true freedom is the realization of the principle that your vision of it will not always coincide with somebody else's, and, therefore, the greatest Liberty should be recognized with respect to parental prerogative, because the alternative solution of putting that power in the state's hands can be even more dangerous, as history has shown.
Freedom should not be based on the "least common denominator" of what everybody agrees on. That's a formula for minimal freedom, and is antithetical to the expansive view of Liberty which should prevail. People's pursuit of happiness, including on behalf of their children, is not subject to your narrow vision, or even society's, but rather their own.
Since declining to vaccinate one's child does not infringe on that child's rights, I don't think the state can legitimately mandate such a thing without a compelling, overwhelming reason. Parental choice should be the default, and if you want 100% of parents to vaccinate their children, try educating them instead of coercing them.
Neither do parents. I do not "own" my children. Parent's who believe they do are uncivilized savages.
and permitting the state to usurp parental sovereignty is an extremely perilous and slippery slope.
Protection of the life, liberty and property of its citizens is not a "usurpation." Slippery slope arguments are, in general, invalid. I won't accept yours.
We have Constitutions, legislatures, judiciaries, and the plaintiff's bar to assure that won't happen. I could just as easily claim that taking an absolutist position with regards to the lives of children winds up with dead kids. And it does.
The same goes for physical discipline of children. I think it's entirely appropriate in the vast majority of cases, although it can obviously be abusive in others. That doesn't mean it should be banned altogether.
So, you admit there are circumstances where parents are not sovereign? My God man! if parents aren't allowed to shoot or stab their children, we'd be on an incredibly slippery slope!
many parents smoke (tobacco or whatever) it does not rise to the compelling level of what would constitute actionable child abuse.
OK. This conversation is over: you are a complete fool.
Smoking marijuana in the same room with a child is actionable child abuse. I've got nothing more to say to you. It's clear that you really do believe that children are chattel. Not interested in carrying on a "debate" with such a person.