There is no contradiction, us telling someone they can't smother their aged parents doesn't require we support them. That is clear, and not really debatable, you choose not to read its clear meaning because it violates your narrative. You could simply say, as I do, that the nation has the resources to care for its poor and a moral obligation to make a reasonable effort to do so, and that as children are least able to care for themselves and least responsible for their state we have them as greatest priority. Note that point doesn't contradict the above, it is separate.

You state that to steal food when starving is an exception, yet weirdly the idea of other acts of self-preservation involving harming others has come up in our discussion before and you seem at best lukewarm on it for those. There's no dissonance in my remarks, a person should not steal, but in defense of another's life it is forgivable, usually. Same as slapping a hysteric trying to harm themselves. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is not "right", simply forgivable, like driving a bleeding person to a hospital instead of calling and ambulance. There are almost inevitably, especially in modern society, superior alternatives, we just recognize that those in extremis or close enough often don't make great decisions.

Stop right there, that is simply a proclamation, you don't justify it, merely "Joel says", and hence may be discarded. especially as it contradicts the very concept of probable cause.

Wrong, it absolutely does. The supposition must merely be 'reasonable', thinking you hear a voice, even if it turns out you didn't, is sufficient. How do you not know that?

Congrats, you are now officially pro-life, no surprise to me.

I can't prove human life is sacred, I damn well will force others to act as though it is. I can't prove a brain damaged human is still a person, I expect them to be treated as such. We're not talking about the ridiculous, that is encompassed in 'reasonable' doubt, a tree is not a person, neither is a television, that can be established beyond reasonable doubt if not with absolute certainty. We barely have anything approaching a definition of personhood though, and none with precision are well agreed upon.

Nor am I concerned about the 'added dangers' to those who resist us 'imposing' our belief that fetus are people. Anymore then the added danger to a man who believes his Down's Syndrome afflicted child is not a person. Why should I worry and tiptoe and hesitate to ban murdering the mentally retarded for fear of upsetting their parents?

Then it isn't your call to tell them murder is wrong, theft is wrong, not paying their taxes is wrong, or anything else. That's a valid position but only if you carry it all the way. Otherwise it is nonsense. Position weak and unsupportable you fallback on utter nonsense. Seriously, how the hell do you even have the ability to mutter such gibberish? You can't tell them not to kill people but you've got no problem telling them not to own a gun?

Well, news flash, most libertarians are pro-choice, its only recently that most of them stopped flipping out on those who called themselves pro-life libertarians.

In any event, we've established you're fine with forcing people to support other people unless that other person is their own child.

You weren't given any contradictory ones.