When does a parent’s rights over their child’s body end?

[Kingpoleon]

There are a litany of actions throughout society’s indicating that a parent may have rights over their child’s body. These include abortion, circumcision, female genital mutilation, infant ear piercing, and a host of other things. Where and when does a parent’s right to their child’s body end?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It depends on how invasive the right in question is, but I'm generally of the opinion that parents should overall have somewhat (not massively, but somewhat) less say over their children's bodies than they do under current law.

[politicallefty]

I would say the right ends at birth. I think a woman's right to bodily autonomy generally supersedes any right of a fetus. I think a parent's right over their child's body extends only to necessary medical issues (and I would include vaccines as necessary medical attention). I don't believe parents have a right to circumcise their children. That is a decision best left to the individual. I find infant ear piercing strange and it probably shouldn't be done or allowed, but it's not really an irreparable harm like circumcision. Overall, I think an individual should be afforded as much bodily autonomy as possible. Any question or debate that teeters on the edge should tilt to the side of the right of bodily autonomy.

[John Dule]

The moment the umbilical cord is severed; not a second earlier or later.

[Kingpoleon]

The moment the umbilical cord is severed; not a second earlier or later.

Obviously every person has a property in their own body. But to say that such a right is so extensive that another human being, not there of their own free will, can be terminated? I don’t think that’s very tenable. By that logic, if I were to accidentally leave my phone inside someone else’s house, they now have a property over my phone and could reasonably destroy it. Why? Because my property’s existence is dependent upon being within their property.

[parochial boy]

I mean yeah, when say, a 4 year old, requires a dangerous but potentially life saving medical intervention you would still be required to get their parents' consent. I dare say most people would agree that is probably rightly so.

[Kingpoleon]

I mean yeah, when say, a 4 year old, requires a dangerous but potentially life saving medical intervention you would still be required to get their parents' consent. I dare say most people would agree that is probably rightly so.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/overriding-parental-decision-withhold-treatment/2003-08

The central question before the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, was whether parents have a legal right to deny their child urgently needed life-sustaining medical treatment. ...

On this issue the court reasoned that the Texas legislature had expressly given parents a right to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, urgently needed or not, for a child with a certifiably terminal condition, but it did not extend that right to the parents of children with nonterminal impairments, deformities, or disabilities. Thus, the court concluded that the Millers had a right to withhold life-sustaining treatment for Sydney only to the extent that her condition was certifiably terminal and unless it was certified terminal that right could not be exercised. ...

The court explained that in a situation where the medical treatment proposed for a child is not life-saving or life-sustaining, a court order is needed to override a parent's refusal to consent to the treatment. By contrast, the court explained, where the need for life-sustaining medical treatment is an emergency, time constraints will often not permit resort to the courts. ...

The third competing interest is that of the state. The court explained that the state, under the rubric of parens patriae (the parents' role), can act to guard the well-being of minors, even if doing so limits the freedom and authority of their parents. "Although parents enjoy the right to make decisions concerning their children's care, their decisions must yield to state intervention if they fail in their legal duty to provide reasonably necessary medical care for their children" [5]. The court explained that in Texas, the rights of a parent are subject to court orders, including an order granting a governmental entity authority to consent to a child's medical treatment initially refused by the parents.

Also, Potter Stewart’s concurrence in Roe v. Wade borders upon giving states the ability to ban abortion in some circumstances, in the interest of protecting the unborn life:

The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy.

[parochial boy]

Ok, so a vaguely pedantic point where the state is consenting in lieu of parents in what is a pretty reasonable circumstance where the parents are unwilling or unable to fulfil their role.

It still doesn't change the point that quite clearly someone is consenting on behalf of the child. Or, more fundamentally, it accepts that parent's have a right over their child's body even if this can be overriden in certain circumstances. All it really does is support the original point that my argument implied, which is there isn't a single theoretical moment where you can say a parent's right has ended because it depends on a lot of different factors or circumstances

[Kingpoleon]

Ok, so a vaguely pedantic point where the state is consenting in lieu of parents in what is a pretty reasonable circumstance where the parents are unwilling or unable to fulfil their role.

It still doesn't change the point that quite clearly someone is consenting on behalf of the child. Or, more fundamentally, it accepts that parent's have a right over their child's body even if this can be overriden in certain circumstances. All it really does is support the original point that my argument implied, which is there isn't a single theoretical moment where you can say a parent's right has ended because it depends on a lot of different factors or circumstances

Perhaps my objection could best be phrased, then, as saying that parental rights over their child’s body, while substantial, is not absolute. Parents should not have the right to permanently alter their child’s body or terminate their child’s life, as every human has a property over their own body and their own life for their whole existence, exempting very exceptional circumstances.