When I corner Liberals regarding their philosophy of human rights, that if human rights accrue simply by reason of a person’s humanity, then children should also be fully enfranchised in society, viz., the vote, gun rights, driving rights, etc. They will appeal to sophistry and obfuscation at this point and maintain that children are not knowledgeable enough to make decisions for themselves and for me to suggest such a thing is absurd. This is a Red Herring and a Straw Man argument. I never said children should make decisions for themselves. But I can say that because I do not believe that rights derive from possessing human nature. Rights derive from one’s fidelity to the creator’s law-word. What the liberal is actually doing at this point is claiming that children are not human or are subhuman without actually using those exact words. Being knowledgeable as an adult is just another way of saying “fully human” without plainly admitting it. But this brings up an extremely problematic issue: most liberals reject the idea of knowledge. Most liberals I have known “virtuously ” brag about how there is no absolute knowledge and all opinions are subjective. But wait, in order to maintain your raison d’être, viz., the “virtuous” cause for human rights, you must have knowledge in order to qualify as a full adult person. So I have left you nowhere to run.