Sick Migrants Undergoing Lifesaving Care Can Now Be Deported

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d not forget, the Democrats have voted against funding to provide more facilities to migrants on the border. Funny, how you don’t hear criticisms about that. Political football.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This does not make America great. It makes us worse.
 
So much for our “pro-life” administration. Kicking out a legal immigrant, who will die because of it.
 
Stephen_C said:
In my opinion one cannot call themselves pro-life if they agree with this.
Click to expand...
This is a Catholic forum, I follow the Catholic church. Not your own made-up thoughts and no Magisterium says that.

And by the way, the truth remains, the Democrats voted against more aid to the border facilities, that is not deflection, that is fact in this argument.
angel12 said:
So much for our “pro-life” administration. Kicking out a legal immigrant, who will die because of it.
Click to expand...
So much for people telling us what the Church says. Sorry, the Church specifically covers some matters, this they don’t. Not on the sanctity of life issue.

CRS gets lots of government funds, why don’t these organizations step up to the plate in these matters?

And that “so much for” is pretty reprehensible to say when the administration has acted a number of times on the pro-life issue. Do those lives or potential saved not count now?
 
Last edited:
whataboutism deflection again. With an insult as well.
This is a simple question Do you support this?
 
Last edited:
In the case of Isabel, wouldn’t the removal of her treatment cause her to die.

Is it not Euthanasia?

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
 
Hi Sally. What do you mean by “NONES?” I don’t understand the reference. Sorry about that. 😦
 
CBP, Customs Border Patrol, Naturalization, all of these are departments of the government. I don’t hold the President responsible for upholding the laws of our nation. As if he is individually responsible for what the local IRS does is beyond ridiculous.

It’s like the military, he let them act on their own in Iraq and Syria. He doesn’t dictate each individual act.

If then, a US bomb ended up killing civilians as it has with the last 4, 5 presidents then, by this logic per the euthanasia post above, we could call it murder if a bomb killed civilians.

What’s next? Accusing anyone for abortion as being a murderer? Some reason needs to be here.

Do we too, blame everyone who ever made our immigration law for euthanasia? Really.

Many immigrants come to our country and commit heinous acts, those for lax border security too, have plenty of guilt then.
“dvdjs said:
This might be an interesting topic. Why not start a thread rather than hijacking this one?
Click to expand...

That is called an analogy,
analogy

[əˈnaləjē]

NOUN
  1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Click to expand...
Insulting others is prohibited by the rules.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
This might be an interesting topic. Why not start a thread rather than hijacking this one?
Click to expand...
That is called an analogy,
analogy

[əˈnaləjē]

NOUN
  1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Click to expand...
Insulting others and ad hoc statements are prohibited by the rules.

Why not accuse me of the same when I brought up war and civilians who get killed?

By the way, I noticed others were mentioning the term “pro-life” in the thread, perhaps you might want to direct your statement towards them as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top