Search results

The irony is too far gone to even raise a smile...

True enough on the first but regarding children's rights it's not solely "government" regardless and laws protecting children and giving them inalienable rights are right on the money. Yes, there is and if you deny such to children then don't pretend that you care about any once they've exited...

Sure they do, its the law no matter how many times you repeat your opinion.

If you're resorting to hyperbole and soundbite then that only shows a want of a strong opposing argument, it certainly doesn't defeat anyone else's position. It's not what I promote, it's the law and it makes far more sense than you. Most people, when planning to have a family are going to take...

It really is 'just because you say so' JR, from the confines of the cozy metaphorical armchair no less. The real world is rather different and way more nuanced than your subjective flights of biased fancy.

I don't go with anything that "teaches" parents to be irresponsible or less loving to their children. That's just a load of bunk of your own making and a feeble excuse for you denying children basic rights. Frankly, you are mired in your own ideology and there's not much point in even trying to...

It's not confusing on a moral level. It might be couched in terminology but if a child has the right to be born then what use is that if the child doesn't have the right to essentials to sustain life post birth? How much of a double standard is going on there?

Why, because you say so? This is just typical hyperbole and soundbite. Many on the lower end of the social ladder in terms of income are reliant on subsidies, it doesn't make them irresponsible or some such and the doing away with them would increase the poverty rate in society exponentially...

Denying it doesn't make it false. Please get some new soundbites... Effectively you're pro-birth, not pro life. Nothings guaranteed even with protective measures in place but if you deny a newborn child the rights to essentials then frankly, you may as well be pro-abort for all you ever cared...

Not exactly sure where you're going with only negative obligations honestly. With regards to children then there have to be protective measures in place to ensure they have their essential needs met - ergo, rights. A loving, responsible parent will meet those needs and wouldn't see such as an...

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...