If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up
opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others;
is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally
or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth?

In the situation of the former, an individual has had something and then that has been taken away from them. In the situation of the latter, it is a case of the child having not had something given to them that you judge to be fundamental.

The word 'deprived' is interesting. "Lacking in advantage, opportunity or experience." The child is deprived because they have not been given one of those three things.

Thus, these scenarios do not correspond.

The two are not identical but they have enough in common
to make it a very valid question.

They're fundamentally different. The uncomfortable feeling you got that caused you to write the above sentence might have been used to better effect.

An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's
future away

You're deliberately being sloppy with the language to further a broken conclusion. Stealing implies property that has been taken away. That's not what's happening here.

The dancing is all yours, and this is the second post in a row where. Semantic tricks do not thrust an argument beyond logical barriers.

either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is
wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the
possible solution of wealth distribution might be
itself wrong

I don't have a problem with debating these
solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant
compromise

No. It is not your place to steal from people, nor to get the government to do it on your behalf and then pretend it's any different.

That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first
order.

It's very easy to throw nasty names around.

Your frustration at seeing potential gain go to waste (the child) and consequential suffering on the part of that person is clear. Please - try to see where I'm coming from.

I want a situation where as many people get good education, health care and moral guidance. However, government is a mechanism that is both poor and dangerous when it is given charge of these things. Poor because it is not subject to the brutal honesty of market forces to keep it in check, and dangerous because it uses every bit of power that it is granted to (in some measure) line the pockets of the people involved in its running and self-perpetuate at the expense of our freedoms.

Government creates dependance on itself, steals our liberty, and poisons minds such that when good people identify a problem they wrong assume that it's the government's responsibility to fix it rather than their own. It's not.

If you want to improve the lot of a particular grouping of people, then there are things you can do like finding ways to sponsor people, finding charities that actually make a difference in things and supporting them, or getting involved in things that make a difference yourself.

But actually, in order to do good you don't even need to go that far. If we go out into the world, be effective in our careers, have a family and raise them well enough that we are improving on the contribution of ourselves and our spouses, that will actually make a positive difference because we'll be growing a better next generation and creating opportunities for others through our economic activity.

Powerful government is the enemy. It is wasteful, inherently corrupt and hampers the ability of honest people to do what I describe in the above paragraph.