Many anti contacters, you among them, claim to be for parental rights, but actually follow nothing of parental rights theory.

I don't favor Parental Rights as any sort of philosophy and don't think I've ever said I did. The most general claim I've made is that parents are the class of people who are most likely to have the child's true interest at heart -- compared to the state, for instance. The child of course has his or her own interests at heart too and there is a complicated interplay between parent and child as the child takes on more and more responsibility.

I may have added as well that if parents are going to the trouble of having kids, it's reasonable if they get some leeway in such things as raising the kids with their religion and values. I may have noted too that there is some problem here of incentives and rewards. The ideal behind, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" is that people will work hard for the common good even if it does not benefit them personally. History shows no evidence of this, and societies where hard work does not yield a personal reward (or reward to their families) don't do well. By the same token, I suspect that when couples are offered the choice of raising children where they have all the responsibility and none of the power, many will opt out (leaving parents who didn't plan to be parents, which is on average not so ideal).

I can just hear a few people jumping to respond that I'm supporting child slavery, blah, blah, blah. I'm just saying that parental interests should be considered to some extent. What extent is a complicated question.