Your argument is essentially that because we don't / cannot outlaw all ways to harm others, we cannot justify making other laws to avoid harming others?

You are also strawmanning to assume that laws that punish bad parenting would immediately skip to the state raising the kids.

It's not an argument but a question. Should we try to minimize harm in society at the expense of individual freedoms, and if so how far do we take it? Having the state raise kids is being seriously discussed in places like Harvard Law Review as an ideological harm reduction measure. Should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others (such as right to own a gun, right to refuse a vaccine, right to own and drive a car, etc.) be eventually outlawed, leaving only freedoms that let you harm yourself?

Cherry picking moments to ask targeted questions is more or less a form of persuasive arguing.

All laws restrict freedoms to protect the wider society. This isn't a novel concept. Not being able to murder is a freedom deprived of you. The question of "should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others be eventually outlawed" is obviously "No". Law is not the only tool to encourage better behavior.

But passing laws to outlaw any of your examples doesn't mean we're saying "Yes" anymore than outlawing murder does. Those are just specific laws. The question is "which freedoms should be restricted to prevent individuals from harming others". Your original framing of the question makes it an all or nothing case, but its not.

The state does deprive people of rights to raise their kids if they're really awful parents. That does not mean that making smoking in a car with kids illegal guarantees that this would be the associated punishment.