[_8j50]

You may disagree with it but so long as the kids get all the same nutrients from other food sources and they don't go hungry it is the parent's discretion what the child eats. Otherwise it would be the government or society that raises the kids not the parents or guardians which are the people who have the most affection and desire to see the best outcome for that specific child. If a parent or guardian is acting in malice or willful ignorance of facts that will result in harming a child, I have no problem with the government stepping in and figuring out who else would be best suited to care for the child.

[jasonhansel]

I'm not saying, of course, that such a parent should have their kids taken away by the government.

But I do think that a good parent would grant their kids a certain level of privacy and autonomy, depending on the child's age and the risks involved.

In this case, the risks of a kid eating meat are fairly low; one kid's chicken tenders aren't going to build a factory farm, and they can always change back to a vegetarian diet later.

(Of course, some vegetarians will have stomach issues if they suddenly start eating meat. The kid should know about that risk, but the reactions in question are usually very mild.)

[_8j50]

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with that, no problem with moderate meat consumption. I mentioned it in my first comment as an extreme example of what parents can do at their discretion.