As he said, children's health is outside their control.
This is where my lecturer's lofty theory starts to gain a little traction. On the one hand, we have a demographic accusing the local authority of spiking their water. On the other, there is a demographic I'd wager is completely oblivious to the debate. And there's the rub.
The latter is the very demographic water fluoridation is aimed at; the disengaged - those who either won't or can't ensure their children enjoy basic health.
No doubt the opposite is true: the informed oppose fluoridation.
But that's where liberalism becomes paradoxical; or more cynically, becomes synonymous with individualism.
It's wholly inequitable - and elitist - to deny at-risk children the very freedoms and equality espoused by those who regard fluoridated water as a threat to civil liberty.