The comment which started this was implying that parental rights (in scare quotes) fell to the rights of children. All of your arguments focus on community rights and democratic power overcoming parental rights, something which is beside the point. If it requires democratic power and doesn't apply universally (spatially and temporally), even within that particular jurisdiction, it can hardly be said to be merely the recognition of a child's fundamental right. And the article you linked says that the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that "[a] 17-year-old Connecticut girl with a highly curable cancer is
not mentally competent to make her own medical decisions" (emphasis mine).
Also, your arguments about landmark cases in which state power overcame parental rights in rare situations would tend to demolish the idea that parental rights are some fringe legal and philosophical movement cooked up by anti-vaxxers, which is the implication which began this thread. Especially because the court recognizes the existence of parental rights even while ruling to override them. Additionally, the purported legitimacy of being forcibly vaccinated by the state would demolish any bodily autonomy argument which could be made to assert a child's right to vaccinate.
>Sure they can
A dodge. If there are theraputic vaccines (arguably a contradiction in terms), then they are legally distinguishible from non-theraputic ones. The original comment (about "parental rights") was clearly referring to this particular non-theraputic HPV vaccine and others like it. Let's stay on topic.
>A dodge. To be clear
I don't think it's at all illegitmate to presume that at least one Amish child in the history of Amish children has desired a vaccine and was told no by his or her parents. Throw in literally every other similarly-situated religious group and we're talking about a significant number of people.
If the right is truly fundamental, it's a right denied regardless of whether the child lawyered up and took it to the Supreme Court. The Amish community would be massacred Waco-style if there were even hints that this precious, fundamental right was being denied to children (if you may recall another child-protecting operation). That is, of course, assuming that anyone genuinely believed this right to exist. Which as a general matter they do not and never have.
The fringe movement is the one putting parental rights in scare quotes and treating children as adults (except when in the womb, never there).
So, in summary, people who put parental rights in scare quotes while asserting invented rights as a means to acquire access to children are indeed the reason for which civilization has developed the venerable age of consent law.