• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Separation Good; Abortion Bad

minnie616 said:
I am not fine with seperating children from their parents at the boarder as a policy. I thought I made clear.
Click to expand...
You were fine with Obama holding 10's of thousands in detention centers. Trump only held 2000 in detention centers.
Past administrations tried very hard to keep families together and either deported them together ( most of the time ) or granted them amnesty as a family ( in some of the cases ).
Click to expand...
But border security has become an issue because of actions from past administrations. Truthfully, these border problems should have been solved during the bush administration, when I can still remember the photos of migrants pouring in here, and senators like Arlen Specter courageously choosing to do nothing. They've let it become an issue, and now america is hopefully divided as a result.
I gave you the better option keeping families together using ankle monitors like the Obama administration did toward the end of his administration. An idea that even the National Review wrote an article of endorsement.
Click to expand...
and I have yet to see them stop using ankle monitors. Nor, have I seen any politician push for ankle monitors. It's not ankle monitors being discussed. It's one thing for me to discuss that with you, but why should I run over and agree with nancy pelosi, over ankle monitors? I want more border security, not less.
You just hear the noise about the fringe that is against Ice because they are the loudest and are repeatly shouted about by the conservative talking hosts.
Click to expand...
They're the ones getting elected. What's to say except that the democrats are fringe? Has nancy pelosi said anything about ankle monitors, and if so, why doesn't she call her donors to push it in the media?
 
minnie616 said:
Who said we were fine with it? The children Who came in 2014 were not with their parents when they came to border. The 2000 plus children Trump detained were separated at the boarder.Try reading some 2014 articles about the 2014 migrate crisis and the steps the government made to speed up hearings.
.
Click to expand...
Right, and like the vox article you just posted, they would have been separated for 72 hours (or more, as it points out, in that situation) whether they had their "parents" or not. that has always been part of the procedures, as vox explains. You know, what obama did. The only thing trump did was put the children in care of the HHS, as opposed to letting border patrol keep them.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
I am not on the left.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you are or are not, because they are the political opposition and they oppose the solution you suggested.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Right, and like the vox article you just posted, they would have been separated for 72 hours (or more, as it points out, in that situation) whether they had their "parents" or not. that has always been part of the procedures, as vox explains. You know, what obama did. The only thing trump did was put the children in care of the HHS, as opposed to letting border patrol keep them.
Click to expand...

No , if they were with their family they would have been detained with their family.

Families with children
The government opened detention centers to house hundreds of families: a 700-bed facility in New Mexico, and a new, permanent facility in Dilley, Texas. The government sent immigration judges and court officials to the detention centers to process families' cases as quickly as possible, so that they could be released or deported.
Click to expand...

The 2014 Central American migrant crisis - Vox
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
...

and I have yet to see them stop using ankle monitors. Nor, have I seen any politician push for ankle monitors. It's not ankle monitors being discussed....
Click to expand...

President Trump decided not to use ankle monitors when he took office.
He condemned the practice and called it catch and release.

After the political fallout of the family separation hit the fan so to speak. He killed that policy but had to manage all the migrates he no longer could detain.

He decided to use ankle monitors again.

From the following article:

The Trump administration is planning to release some migrant families into the United States equipped with ankle monitors after several court orders restricted the government's ability to hold thousands of migrant families detained at the southern U.S. border.

The New York Times reports that the administration will effectively return to the "catch and release" policy which President Trump himself has condemned in the past, as federal officials struggle to find detention facilities for the thousands of migrant adults awaiting trial for illegal entry, as well as their children.
Click to expand...

Gee ...someone running for President in 2020 is promoting the use of ankle monitors.

From the following:

Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro on Sunday said he would prefer to track illegal immigrants using ankle monitors rather than detaining them.

The former Obama administration housing chief and former mayor of San Antonio made the comments while discussing how he would deal with the increase in migrant families crossing the southern border illegally, should he win his party's nomination for president in 2020. Castro on Saturday officially launched a 2020 White House bid.

"What I believe we could do and what the Obama administration did do, I believe, toward the end of its tenure, was to look at things like ankle monitors so that you're able to monitor where people are in the country," he said during an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation" when asked what he would do with illegal immigrants in lieu of detention or deportation.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Julian Castro: Put ankle monitors on illegal immigrants rather than detaining them
 
gfm7175 said:
WRONG. The fetus/baby made no willful choice to be there; the PARENTS did... How can a baby "invade" if they aren't even choosing to be there?


The intruder invading your home made the willful choice to be there; a baby in a womb made no such choice... Faulty comparison... Illogical...
Click to expand...

Logical. 100%.

Why, you ask?

Because the issue is not about choice... that is your addition. The only issue that matters is that there is an invader.
 
gfm7175 said:
But I doubt that people would argue to shoot a squatter... Just to have them forcibly removed...
Click to expand...

Just like the invading fetus...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Just like the invading fetus...
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an "invading fetus"... Invasion involves an unwelcome intrusion by a person/people (usually with the purpose of taking over or defending a territory)... A fetus makes no such choice, nor has the capability of invasion.

In fact, the parents made the choice for the chance of having a fetus be there. The existence of the fetus in the womb is the sole cause and fault of the parents, not the fetus.

Stop redefining the word invasion to suit your immorality...
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Logical. 100%.

Why, you ask?

Because the issue is not about choice... that is your addition. The only issue that matters is that there is an invader.
Click to expand...

You are redefining the word invasion to suit your immorality... In order to invade, a choice must be made by the person/people invading to be somewhere that they are unwelcome to be. A baby inside a womb is making no such choice, nor has the capability to make any such choice. The choice for the baby to be there was made by the parents.

There is no such thing as an "invading fetus"... It is a redefinition of the word invasion to suit the wrongful termination of innocent life.
 
calamity said:
Can anyone explain this dichotomy?

Support stripping kids from their parents, but let's deny women the right to choose not being a parent. How does that make sense?

And, while we are at discussing this kind of thing. Explain this to me too, please.

It's good to shoot an intruder, who invades your home--apparently, god approves of that--but vacuum out an intrusion into a uterus and Wooo, off to hell you should go.

What is up with that?
Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous thinking I've ever seen. Stripping kids from their parents? Who are here illegally and committing a crime according to our immigration laws. Compare to killing a baby in the womb, you call an intrusion into a uterus! You are a sick person.
 
gfm7175 said:
There is no such thing as an "invading fetus"... Invasion involves an unwelcome intrusion by a person/people (usually with the purpose of taking over or defending a territory)... A fetus makes no such choice, nor has the capability of invasion.

In fact, the parents made the choice for the chance of having a fetus be there. The existence of the fetus in the womb is the sole cause and fault of the parents, not the fetus.

Stop redefining the word invasion to suit your immorality...
Click to expand...

Ants don't make a choice to invade either... as they are incapable of thinking, yet they invade anyway.

BOOM! I won that one...

Stop redefining definitions to suit your weak argument.
 
gfm7175 said:
You are redefining the word invasion to suit your immorality... In order to invade, a choice must be made by the person/people invading to be somewhere that they are unwelcome to be. A baby inside a womb is making no such choice, nor has the capability to make any such choice. The choice for the baby to be there was made by the parents.

There is no such thing as an "invading fetus"... It is a redefinition of the word invasion to suit the wrongful termination of innocent life.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it invaded or if the woman wanted to get pregnant and then changed her mind and wants an abortion.

If she wants an abortion good for her. Do it honey... destroy the fetus and move on with your life.
 
gfm7175 said:
WRONG. Ants are capable of thinking, and of invading.


Correct.


No, you didn't...


Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one redefining terms, in this case, 'invade'...
Click to expand...

Prove that ants can think! LOL
 
Bodhisattva said:
Prove that ants can think! LOL
Click to expand...
Put your hand down in front of one and it will run away from your hand...

Or take the time to watch them build/repair an ant colony sometime...
 
gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one redefining terms, in this case, 'invade'...
Click to expand...

Definition of invade
transitive verb

1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE
doubts invade his mind
b : to affect injuriously and progressively
gangrene invades healthy tissue

Invade | Definition of Invade by Merriam-Webster


2 could fit. Nothing in there about thinking. Gangrene is incapable of thinking.
 
gfm7175 said:
Put your hand down in front of one and it will run away from your hand...

Or take the time to watch them build/repair an ant colony sometime...
Click to expand...

Those are just instincts... not a cognitive thought process... a big hand comes down to smash me and I don't think... hmmm, better run or I will get smashed... nope, I just run. Same as the ant.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Now, I can tell you one thing, I rarely, if ever, agree with zero-tolerance policies. They just have a habit of not working or not solving any problems.

Now, the democrat solution has been to just criticize Trump for what obama did, while talking about abolishing ICE(it's border patrol that has the zero tolerance policy). Sorry but, no. The system we have isn't perfect, but we don't abolish ICE. If democrats have a better plan with will increase our security, deal with the problem of illegal immigration and trafficking, without separating families, then i'd like to see them propose it and campaign on it.
Click to expand...

Obama did not do what Trump is doing. He didn't separate children from their parents with absolutely no idea where they went.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Definition of invade
transitive verb

1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE
doubts invade his mind
b : to affect injuriously and progressively
gangrene invades healthy tissue

Invade | Definition of Invade by Merriam-Webster


2 could fit. Nothing in there about thinking. Gangrene is incapable of thinking.
Click to expand...

Two does not fit. None of those definitions fit...

This is also a False Authority Fallacy. Merriam Webster, nor ANY dictionary for that matter, does not define any word, nor does any dictionary have any authority over any word definition. Words are defined by people, through use of things such as philosophy, science, logic, etc. or through various trades such as engineering...
 
gfm7175 said:
Two does not fit. None of those definitions fit...
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that.


This is also a False Authority Fallacy. Merriam Webster, nor ANY dictionary for that matter, does not define any word, nor does any dictionary have any authority over any word definition. Words are defined by people, through use of things such as philosophy, science, logic, etc. or through various trades such as engineering...
Click to expand...

LOL. You just contradicted yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom