Where do Libertarian Babies Come From?

While this post deals with a problem I have regarding children in general, I feel that Libertarians should be particularly troubled by this and so have a harder time with children.

So an issue I have been trying to think through recently is, from where do we get the right to raise children? It is widely recognized that parents have the right to raise their children, to command their life for a number of years: telling them what to do, where to go, what to eat, etc. But people don't have this right in general. Libertarians especially, but most people also, believe in individual freedom and choice, that no person has the rights over the life of another person.

So why is it that parents have this right over children?

Is it because the parents made the children, and so they have the right to do with them as they see fit? If that's the reason, then parents should be able to command their children's lives all the time, not just when they are young. After all, the fact that parents made the child is always true, and if the right comes from that, then the right must always be there.

Is it because the child doesn't know any better, and so it needs to have its life directed? If that's the reason, then who makes the determination about when or if the child knows better? If it's the parents call, then a parent could say that child never knows any better and so they have the right to control his/her life for ever. If this is the reason, then a person never has control over his/her life until their parents relinquishes the right. And this is without even going into the issue of whether this determination needs to be made by both parents or just one.

Or is it that the community decides when or if the child knows better? If this is true then a group of people can decide whether or not a person can have freedom and autonomy from their parents, and so the right of the child to control his own life comes from the group. So if the community decides that a 25 year old with a job still doesn't know better, its alright for the parents to control where they live, their bank accounts, etc.

Does this right to control the life of the child come from the fact that a child isn't a "person" until a certain age, and so has no rights beforehand but has all the rights of a person afterwards? If that's the reason then it would sanction all kinds of actions against children because they aren't people and so don't have rights.

Or is it that a child is a "quasi-person" who has some rights of people but not others? If so, then who delineates these rights, and who decides when a child goes from quasi- to full-person?

Even if this right to control a child's life comes from the fact that the child doesn't know any better, why is it that the parents are the ones to direct this life? The fact that a child is deemed to be unable to take care of himself proves that someone should take care of him, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the parents. To give the parents this right must mean that we are assuming that these parents will best take care of the child. This might make sense from an evolutionary way, a person is much more likely to take good care of family than a stranger. But then we recognize that the parent's right in this case comes from an argument for efficiency, and not some innate right to the child.

So, where do Libertarian babies come from, what arguments do people of that philosophy make to justify this right?

Why is it that we have the right to raise children?