I understand the original Q and belive a sincere motive behind the inquiry; a self-professed Baptist initiated the thread. But I can't help but wonder if a better phrasing for the question might have asked how DO Baptists consider their children in relation to the church?, and left it primarily to Baptists to answer and defend. In saying this, I am not criticizing the tone of the thread, or any contributor. I think (in spite of many words, 5pp worth) transgression has made little appearance, Prv.10:19.
The issue of "ought" is exactly correlated in our circles to debate over 1) what the Bible teaches, and 2) what our Confession(s) declare is agreed-upon with respect to biblical teaching, thus limiting the debate to arguments within certain bounds on certain topics. There are other places existing for more wide-ranging exchanges, so at the PB we're happy with the forum we have and its rules of decorum. Baptism is one topic where confessional differences make for a jousting arena. There is disparity on the issue of "ought."
The original Q was deliberately set forth in the general Baptism subforum, so that non-Baptists might also chime in. This has allowed some non-Baptists with Baptist backgrounds to (hopefully) offer some edifying content as to their own wrestlings with similar uncertainties. Hence, I judge the setting for the original Q was not misplaced.
Still, the wording of the Q could (and may have) incite some incautious non-Baptist responses. Baptists and non-Baptists alike have a habit of judging the "inconsistencies" of the other side's position. "It seems to me, you should conclude this as a result of your commitment to that." Sounds good, to the person comfortably settled within the bounds of his own convictions. The man who was challenged, however, sees none of the alleged fatal inconsistencies; his foundation and reasoning seem secure to him.
In the present case, I think a non-Baptist (especially one who was never Baptist) should be extra cautious when advising a Baptist on the "oughts" of his theological conclusions. I've explained elsewhere: thoughtful practice of baptism flows from prior certainties, from axioms and intermediate conclusions. Conversing with someone entertaining doubts about his current beliefs re. baptismal practice requires investigation into why these doubts are arising.
Superficial reasoning means that he likely has little principled cause to doubt; he's really a convinced Baptist whose curiosity of the paedobaptist position has temporarily made him unsteady. On the other hand, he may inadvertently have a mixed set of axioms and faulty steps of reasoning therefrom that are actually bringing him to the point of choosing to be more consistent, one way or the other. The Baptist way may be his destination, only more firmly rested on an understanding of what properly leads there; or possibly the P&R way will result, again as a clear conclusion from a firm grasp of those theological postulates.
Clearly, there are Baptist-consistent answers to the original Q, which replies (when good) reveal their connections to deeper facts, or to the "network" of interlocking ideas, values, and presuppositions that make serious Baptists what they are. And, there are those who themselves (once with similar questions) were moved to a different pattern of stability in the Faith, and are now capable of communicating in love to address the same Q. It isn't true that no one else has reason to speak to the Q, but these folk especially should guard against the habit of imposing "ought" on another, absent a basis in him for that duty.