-Yes I believe that parents should (unless they are physically or psychologically clearly harming the child) be able to decide for their child whatever they want. Ultimately that decision making would extend to whether they want the child to be involved in sexual relations with adults. I don't think the state should be involved in it.

So yes, you do agree that the DNA the child shares with the parents constitutes something akin to a biological stamp of ownership that is immutable. Does that mean you disagree with the state automatically emancipating the child at age 18 if the parents disagree with that absolutist law? If you disagree with the state being involved in these decisions (I support youth autonomy, not state control, please keep in mind), then why do you think the parents should be required to follow the law when it comes to any decisions regarding their child?

As for your caveat of "unless they are physically or psychologically harming the child" - the latter, at least - what if they force their child to attend a type of school in which the child was terribly unhappy? If they routinely bullied their kids with their orders? If they forced their kids not to associate with people they liked and admired simply because, say, those people were of a race or ethnic background their parents had a strong prejudice against, thus causing the child to suffer extreme loneliness and sadness? If they regularly forced their kids to go places where the children felt terribly uncomfortable, etc., et al?

I think you see what I'm getting at here. Accepting the concept of parental sovereignty necessitates that you ultimately do what is best for the parents, not for the child. This means you have to tolerate physical abuse as long as it doesn't get so extreme that it literally threatens the child's life, and to tolerate any amount of psychological abuse inflicted upon the child, since parents are currently unable to "bully" or "emotionally abuse" their children just like husbands were once unable to be guilty of raping their wives back during the days when wives were effectively the property of their husbands. This is what happens when you allow or rationalize any group of people having near-absolute sovereignty over any other.

As for the constant comparison to slavery etc. I take everything on a case by case basis and do not compare what any group went through and try to look at everything on its on merits not as a continues march of progressivevism or something.

But why not compare if it's genuinely comparable? And it is, when you consider that much of the rhetoric used to rationalize the enslavement and/or disenfranchisement of chattel slaves and women in the past is essentially the same thing used to rationalize the arbitrary disenfranchisement of youths under 18 without regard to their individual merits, potentials, or proven capabilities.

Today, for instance, there are many Muslim black activists in America belonging to the Nation of Islam who argue that their move for emancipation is "different" than the move for emancipation of other minority groups, such as women and homosexuals, and they thus rationalize that they have good reason to denounce the suffrage of the latter two groups. This is what happens when one minority group refuses to recognize the political parallels or the rights of another group if they feel it may inconvenience them in some way, or deprive them of a form of power over others. More specifically, many black male Muslims of a conservative bent have obvious reasons for fighting for the emancipation of the men in their group--which I support, though not for any reasons related to support for male sovereignty--while very self-serving reasons for opposing the equal emancipation of the women in their group--which, of course, I do not support, as I do not support the disqualification of any group of people from constitutional recognition of their rights and universal suffrage under any rationalization. That sets a very terrible precedent under a reputedly democratic system that can easily serve as a rationale for the government, with the support of any current enfranchised "majority" in society, to take the rights of any other group of people in society if they declare it "necessary."

Hence, the constant comparison to slavery (i.e., black chattel slavery of the 18th and early 19th centuries in America) is made because arbitrary youth oppression it is a modern form of enslavement, and thus a very apt comparison--whether society at large wants to accept this or not.

Further, if you wish to look at things on a case-by-case basis, then I ask you to extend this consideration to individuals based on their individual merits and emotional needs and desires--regardless of race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation--or age.

-I don't have to worry about it because Abby's mother has told her up front that she is monitoring everything that the child is doing online. She never wants to lie to her about it. If Abby was trying to break those filters, I would tell the mother.

Which I am not surprised to hear, since you do not honor any conception of privacy or autonomy for Abby. I feel differently about the matter, and thus I would not "rat" on my niece Renee if I happened to stumble upon the fact that that she is circumventing her dad's monitoring. I won't help her do this, of course, but I will not assist in her father's "dirty work" either.

-I am in that position of authority and decision making as the mother in no uncertain circumstances wants me to keep her away from other adult males unless approved by the mother. If it was someone her own age which the mother while uncomfortable with it has actually not told me not to. I would not do anything. I would tell the mother of the relationship. If she approves of it I would of course be fine with it.

Yes, again--if the mother approves. The reason she may disapprove would never enter into the equation for you--such as, if her mother forbade Abby (hypothetically speaking) from hanging out with a decent same age friend because the other child in question happened to be black, or Arabian, or had foster parents who were gay, etc. This is something I ask you to think about.

-Like I said I look at everything based on its on merits. I do not believe a 10 year old should decide what's best for themselves in all cases.

Then, IMO, my newest friend, even though I think you truly want to look at things on its own merits, you are failing to live up to that goal in a major way if you disagree with a decision made by someone for such an arbitrary reason as age alone. What if the 10-year-old in question proves their competence in a certain area, and wants to engage in something that their parents forbid for reasons relating to their religion, or other aspects of moralism? Before you say I shouldn't compare that to the strong belief in the not so distant past that women shouldn't be allowed to make many decisions that men were always allowed to make, then I ask you to please make it clear to me why the comparison isn't apt.

How much the parents decide to let the 10 year old decide for themselves is up to the parents.

Which is, again, not supporting a decision based on the merits of the individual or party making it, but simply on the arbitrary basis of the person(s) belonging to Group X (i.e., Parents) instead of Group Y (i.e., the Children Who Share Their DNA) - without much, if any, concern for the outcome of the decision, or which of the two groups were making the better one based on observable evidence. Or, for that matter, the question of whether or not a society can truly be categorized as free if we do not allow individuals to carve their own destiny due to respect for their autonomy as separate entities from those who conceived them, and to offer them guidance on that path rather than denying them that path entirely via control.