So they're made up.
Of course.
Even corrupt people can make right judgements. Most societies understand
rape and murder are wrong and will condemn them as such. Both citizens
and civil authorities have societal responsibilities before God, and
they will answer to Him for how they fulfill those.
But that's not the point. In Romans 13, rulers are to be extensions of God. Execution is described as a divine prerogative. Whether it's the "right judgement" is irrelevant.
Parents have a responsibility to raise their children (Deuteronomy 6:7)
That is not what the verse delineates. The verse delineates that parents teach the commandments to their children.
just as children have a responsibility to be obedient to their parents (Exodus 20:12).
That is not what the fourth commandments states. The commandment explicitly states that children should "honor" their parents; not necessarily "obey." In 1 Timothy Chapter Five Verse Three, it states, "Honour widows that are widows indeed." Surely this is not describing obedience.
Individuals must care for their household, which includes parents caring for their childrens' needs (1 Timothy 5:8).
This is in specific reference to fathers who abandon their wives and children.
"I wouldn't suggest you throw your baby in the ditch, but it's totally fine if you do."
While this is an uncharitable summary, I don't think it is inaccurate.
It is not only uncharitable but also inaccurate. First I wouldn't be "fine" with it; Second, throwing one's baby into a ditch would be harming the baby. And I neither endorse nor promote the harming of babies.
But the fundamental issue seems to involve the first question: where do
human rights come from? If the answer is reason, you just have to find a
logical pathway to justify killing babies. Treating the parent/child
relationship like a contract that can be negated is one way to do this.
Once again we've revisited this notion of "killing babies." I do not deny that there are methods of abortion which harm, maim, and destroy the zygote/embryo/fetus--and again, I condemn these methods. But expulsion is not the same as killing because the zygote/embryo/fetus dies as a consequence of its own incapacity. Furthermore, if we're going to characterize any dynamic between mother and child as "contractual" then both parties must be willing. The mother can exercise and communicate her will, the zygote/embryo/fetus cannot. And yes, any contract should acknowledge one's capacity to negate/withdraw; anything else would constitute a slave contract.
It may not violate your reason, but it will send you down a dark path.
A dark path? What dark path? Believing that a person should not be coerced in service to another is "dark"?