In fact, I don't even want them to have THAT much control.
You’d think making sure parents do at least the bare minimum to keep their children alive would be one of the few bits of control you’d be fine with.
There is a difference between actively causing harm and merely allowing nature (or God, if you will) to take it's course.
…what kind of F-ed up social-Darwinist-ass logic is that?
These people did not "do" anything to their child. They did not beat him. They did not refuse to feed him. They did not abandon him.
If refusing to provide a child with what they need (such as food) counts as something, then the parents in this case “did” something by not providing their child with needed medical care that could have saved his life.