It’s a step towards the state raising children instead of parents.

This can be used as an argument against any type of child protection laws. So unless you think “well, the state shouldn’t be able to protect children from parents who starve and beat them, because that’s a step towards raising children instead of parents” then the question is really about one of “how much is too much.”

In the future, when it expands to other social aspects, we’ll have no recourse.

Of course we will, what are you talking about? This is the slippery slope fallacy. It’s not “we can’t do anything, or else we have to do everything.”

Just read up on the couple who breast fed their kid on a non-functional nipple and was in the process of transitioning their 5yr old.

Vague references to something that may not even have happened, but almost certainly is being misrepresented by a lack of information, doesn’t help your case at all.