Did I say children are someone's property? And are you are saying the parents do not have the moral and legal duty to protect their child as well? I mean, they are clearly trying to protect their child from their perspective, and yet they are not allowed to do so any further.
What does this even mean? A doctor in the US said there's a chance. That's also science. Science isn't some giant, all-encomposing body in complete agreement on everything always. The "argument from science" makes little sense when you consider science disagrees on lots and lots of things.
If a doctor in the US thinks they could potentially save the child's life, why not? Because some other scientific body says it's not worth bothering or would cause suffering? Are we really so naive to think such things are so obviously set in stone, and if some high court has decided it must be the right call. You are effectively making an argument from authority, which really doesn't hold any water when one considers the unknowable ethics of this kind of situation.
I don't understand these arguments in any way, shape, or form.