Search results

It should because a child should have the right to have essential needs met. Ideally with the parents providing them but if not through child protection services etc. Because you say so? It is true and the UN isn't nor trying to "trump God" regardless. The charter looks out for the well being...

It does under law and rightfully so, so it doesn't even need saying on my part. Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child summarily covers it. Frankly, anyone purporting to value children's welfare and well being would not have a single problem with it.

Food, water, shelter are essentials to life so of course children should have the right to those and lawfully they do. That you would deprive them of any rights has already said it all. Men do not - "generally speaking" have sex drives higher than women. What on earth is the "I know, because...

All your former is addressed all over but as to your latter. You're a fallible human being too and nowhere in the Bible is there any justification for the notion of holding five year old children as accountable for their actions as adults to the point of their being tried and executed, even to...

How so? You seen me going around claiming that I know that God knows other people's thoughts and disapproves of them? Good luck with that...

And another irony meter shuffles off its mortal coil...

Um, no, you do not get this ridiculous concept that men are designed to have higher sex drives than women from reality JR, you really don't....it's one of the funnier things you've said lately but waaaay off the mark. I'm not going to reply more to drawn out parsed out posts like this either...

Of course you aren't. If you deny measures that ensure a child has essentials in order to live then any sum of money down the line isn't going to be of any use to them if they've died of malnutrition. It was directly related and made a salient point. A child should't have to rely on 'good...

JR, I am not gonna wade through yet another needlessly drawn out post that's been parsed to bits point by point. I'll touch on a coupla as frankly, this is just repetitive and predictably going nowhere. Child protection services intervening when a child is in danger is not 'kidnapping' so that...

Funny how you equate a child having the rights to essentials needed in order to survive to being entitled to a huge sum of money. One of your more bonkers comparisons frankly. If a child lacks the essentials that you and I need in order to live then said child is going to suffer and die as...

That would be explosive. I doubt many would want to be involved in that but hey...

Perhaps you're ignorant to your own double standard if you advocate that a child has a right to be born but not to essentials needed to live post birth. Laws changed that stopped things such as child labour so that a bad thing to you? Laws were introduced that required children to have their...

Not at all. Children have those rights over here and there's nothing magical about it. It's part of the law. If you disagree that children should have those rights then you are most assuredly not pro life. How am I 'doubting' it when I've just expressly said from fertilization? You confused or...

Hmm, I was hoping that sanity would prevail in 2020 and Trump would be voted out so it was hardly disappointing when it happened. Was that fun for you?

You are in principle if you argue or agree with those who express that a child has no inalienable rights once born such as the essentials needed in order to survive. That makes you pro birth not pro life. From fertilization. And? Doesn't alter my position where couples who are using...

What a piece of work...

Okayyyyy then.

Then don't deny them or support measures that would deny them essentials to survive post birth. I don't.

No, I don't but you carry on pushing that if you like. You're pro birth, not pro life. Carry on with your "scientific fact" as you will.

Then quit pretending to care about children if you deny that they're entitled to essentials once born. The double standards with some of you lot is something else. Over here, they absolutely do have those rights and rightly so. Oh, and quit with talking about stuff as 'scientific fact'. How...