A few days ago, a mother committed to animal rights responded on her Facebook wall to a post that said, "Vegan parents impose their diet on their children, unlike the rest, who hold a meeting… to decide the menu."
In her response, this mother argued that children shouldn't be pushed towards veganism; rather, it was a decision the child should make. The family should therefore allow freedom to consume any animal product. The family's role was to set an example by avoiding these products.
This appeal to the freedom and rights of the child should, in principle, be welcomed, but there are some objections that can be raised.
First, we can ask those who hold this position regarding animal abuse if they also hold it regarding the abuse of members of their own species. Suppose you see your child hitting another child at daycare. Will you stop it immediately, or will you let them continue until, through observation of their surroundings, they realize that what they are doing is wrong?
Suppose a child decides to eat only candy, sweets, and pizza. Will this mother maintain that her child should be free to make their own decisions and learn by observation, or will she impose her own will on the child? When the victim of a free act is the child themselves, families are less inclined to make statements "in favor of children's freedom" than when it is an animal.
Secondly, it's common and understandable for families to prioritize their children's interests over all others (especially if they aren't human), even if their children's interests are trivial (eating a dish they prefer) and the animals' interests are vital (not dying). That's why it's normal for them to talk about children's freedom, something that is usually well-received by society. But from the animal rights movement, we must try to protect the rights of the victim, not those who profit from exploitation.
Third, this freedom implies that children—from the earliest stages of development—are capable of making decisions and are therefore responsible for their actions. However, this is not the case. If a child assaults another child in front of their parents and the parents do not intervene, the parents are responsible. If a child assaults an animal, the parents are still responsible. It is not fair for parents to shift their responsibility onto the child, much less disguise it as an act of recognizing rights.