Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why was it specifically for that time? Do you regard it as a command that all men should get married?
End of Roe Vs Wade?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You have your Biblical interpretation and Catholicism has ours.
It's in the Constitution. (P.S.: Slavery is also in the Bible.)
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Never said it should be.
Not at all "just like" killing your kids. Not anything like that.
Right Divider
Body part
Great ... let's all move to your paradise.
What if the government doesn't meet those needs?
Your government has legalized the taking of other people's wealth to provide those things to others who have not earned them, but that doesn't make them "rights."
False. Question begging.
A child is not an "it." A child is a him or her, he or she.
"Their" only applies when multiple people are the subjects of the discussion. A single child is not a "they."
Then we call that neglect.
What we DON'T do (read: what the government should not do) is kidnap the children and hold them hostage, or put them in a foster system.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's quibbling over terminology isn't it? Do you agree that all children should have access to the necessities at least for survival once born? Otherwise all of this wrangling over abortion is empty and only underlines the point that the nun in UN's link alluded to. That many people are pro birth rather than pro life.
Right Divider
Body part
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Right. Does that make us all rights violators? No, it doesn't.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's hardly a "paradise" and why on earth would you consider a country that declares that children have the right to essentials to life to be one exactly?
Then it would be held accountable for failing as has happened on occasion.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
No. Words mean things.
That would be great. And I support subsidies that help children who need help, for whatever reason they need it. Nothing wrong in it.
You're not proposing that just because we can't or even won't help a person, that killing the person is a moral option?
That's what it sounds like.
Nope.
See https://kgov.com/constitution for a list of rights that every human has, regardless of nationality.
Then why did it take nearly 200 years for the Supreme Court to "find" the right for a woman to abort her child?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Rather, our government has a welfare system in place and not going down this pointless and irrelevant sidebar again thanks.
Frankly, if you don't support a child having access to the basic necessities for life then please stop pretending to care for children. I'm well aware that if a parent doesn't provide such then it's neglect. That's why there's measures in place to protect children and afford them those necessities, something which you seem to think shouldn't happen.
Everything necessary for sustaining life should be provided for by the parents of the child, which is pretty hard to do (not impossible, but very difficult) when there's only a single parent. It's much easier when both parents are present to divide the workload of raising and providing for (a) child(ren).
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Unless that has a list of rights for children to have access to essentials (and I'm presuming it doesn't) then not interested thanks.
Precisely. It was "opinioned" onto the Constitution by Supreme Court justices, and it is their constitutionally-appointed responsibility to do so. The Constitution is a relatively brief document. It cannot possibly touch upon literally every topic in human experience. SC justices are there to fill in the gaps.