More children torn from arms of asylum seeking parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for sharing this too . . .
"1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship,
2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or
3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.”
Click to expand...
.

If the Trump administration wasn’t doing this above, “the daily rage” would continue anyway.

They would just headline it as “Trump administration puts children in same bedrooms with their smugglers prior to assurances they are not the parent.” or some such headline.

Trump can’t do anything right to those kind of people.

This week when Trump nominates his Supreme Court nominee, he/she will get blasted. It won’t matter who President Trump appoints.

I predict . . . Well . . . Rsge.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
You do realize that was a joke?

Anyway, I was surprised at what a search for the words prison guard killed brought up. Check it out.
Click to expand...
Why? Unless you can make a valid case that prison guards are perfectly safe in states that execute prisoners, I fail to understand why it’s relevant.
 
Annie said:
Not to mention the fact that if CA had killed Manson, Squeaky Frome may not have gotten caught up in his cult.
Click to expand...
If Manson’s mother had aborted him before he was born, Sharon Tate and her baby would still be alive.
 
There was no justification for killing him before he was born. After the Tate murders, there was.
 
I don’t think you can make this argument. As individuals, we are permitted to defend ourselves, to the point of death if necessary. This holds true even if other people continue to commit violent attacks.

In your line of debate you are confusing self-defense and deterrence.
 
Annie said:
There was no justification for killing him before he was born. After the Tate murders, there was.
Click to expand...
According to Church teaching, there was no justification for killing him EVER. The state of California did EXACTLY what is perscribed by doctrine that requires Catholics to respect life from the moment of conception to natural death. It made sure Mansion would never again be a threat to society without killing him and he never was.
 
Last edited:
My mom was pregnant with me when Sharon Tate was murdered. Her baby and I would have been the same age.

The execution of Manson wouldn’t have brought them back.

I think we could have done without any interviews that he had. I think Geraldo had him on in the 80’s and he was very weird.
 
Annie said:
I don’t think you can make this argument. As individuals, we are permitted to defend ourselves, to the point of death if necessary. This holds true even if other people continue to commit violent attacks.

In your line of debate you are confusing self-defense and deterrence.
Click to expand...
You are confused. We are talking about the continuing use of the death penalty in the United States, which the magisterium has universally condemned. The teaching authority of the Church has spoken in unison on this, there is no justification for dissent.

We are talking about the Neil Gorsuch - who may be anti-abortion, but is not Pro-Life as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, because he voted to allow a state to arbitrarily execute a man on dead throw without due process, just because the drugs they wanted to use to kill him were about to expire.

I don’t know what you are talking about, but this is the ongoing conversation you entered.
 
F_Marturana said:
My mom was pregnant with me when Sharon Tate was murdered. Her baby and I would have been the same age.

The execution of Manson wouldn’t have brought them back.

I think we could have done without any interviews that he had. I think Geraldo had him on in the 80’s and he was very weird.
Click to expand...
He was a Rasputin kind of character. Totally depraved, but somehow charismatic enough to brainwash a loyal following.

Satan must be a like that.
 
You keep saying that, but I cannot find any info about bishops’ agreeing with no more DP, except for the purported unity of the USCCB. Do you have further info about that?

Also, the Church has been against the DP for less than 1/20th of Her existence. Somehow I don’t think that constitutes teaching I must agree with. Seems to me that’s why they had to edit that section of the CCC…
 
Annie said:
Also, the Church has been against the DP for less than 1/20th of Her existence. Somehow I don’t think that constitutes teaching I must agree with.
Click to expand...
Dangerous territory.
At what point did the Church conclude that life begins at conception?
Many have pointed to contrary teachings over the years.
 
Annie said:
You keep saying that, but I cannot find any info about bishops’ agreeing with no more DP, except for the purported unity of the USCCB. Do you have further info about that?
Click to expand...
Here is what the Church teaches with respect to the death penalty…
What is the position of the United States bishops on the death penalty?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has long opposed the use of the death penalty in our country. While recognizing that Catholic teaching affirms the authority of a government in rare (if practically nonexistent) cases to execute criminals, the bishops have said that in the United States, there are other, non-lethal means of defense against unjust aggressors that should be used instead.

In 2015, the tenth anniversary year of the bishops’ Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty, a letter reaffirming the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty offered a reflection on our justice system: “Our faith tradition offers a unique perspective on crime and punishment, one grounded in mercy and healing, not punishment for its own sake. No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so. Today, we have this capability.”

http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life...e-program/2017/death-penalty-catholic-q-a.cfm
Click to expand...
You should read the entire Q&A. The bottom line is that United States does not satisfy the single condition that would justify the use of the death penalty, since the state is perfectly capable of incarcerating criminals so they are no longer a threat to society.

No wiggle room in that.
 
Last edited:
There are asylum seekers all over the world who would like to come to the US too. Unfortunately they live in far away places and cannot just walk over here. Nigerians fleeing from Boko Haram for example.

Clearly we cannot accept all asylum seekers so why are those who can walk over here more entitled to asylum than someone who can’t?

If we should accept anyone who walks over here there will be less places for those who can’t walk over here and are probably are in even more danger.
 
That life begins at conception is a scientific fact. OTOH, the Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conception.
 
WRT magisterial teaching, the fact that the bishops of the US meet together and decide something carries no more weight than one bishop saying something.

Here is a review of a book which examines the DP from several angles: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment

The review includes very quick explanations of the Church’s view on the DP.
 
By bolding the US part of the US CCB, I was pointing out that I meant the consensus among all bishops which you mentioned.
 
Can you give evidence of “the magisterium’s” “universally” condemning the use of the DP?

Because when Catholics talk about the magisterium, it includes a lot more than some bishops in one time period saying something. If that were the case, Arianism would be Catholicism.
 
Yes, I understand. Still scientific truth. It relates to the physical.

The Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at a particular moment at or after conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top