Probably all I’ll ever say about immigration
For what it’s worth (2 cents?), I have a few things I’d like to add to the immigration debate currently raging.
.01 Unfair, immoral, heartbreaking things are happening all over the place every day.
This is a plea to look at the big picture. Yes, it’s distressing for both parents and children when they are forcibly and (in this case) temporarily separated. But a responsible and fair evaluation of the issue should take into account other realities, like why we have an immigration policy at all. Like the distressing situations that do and would result from a failure to control our borders.
There are likely no solutions to our current and future problems that don’t involve unpleasantness, inconvenience, hardship, or otherwise negative situations for some. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our best to minimize such situations, nor that we can’t prioritize some needs over others. It just means that no hardship should be evaluated in isolation.
.02 Compelling images make some issues seem disproportionately urgent or important.
If the news and social media weren’t all over this story with photographs and videos of crying children would it have the “legs” it has had for the last few weeks? Does that make this issue any more important than the thousands of young people overdosing on drugs largely brought into the country through our southern border, whose images we rarely see?
How many of those condemning the current administration as heartless and cruel because of crying babies care at all about babies who will never cry because their lives were snuffed out in the womb? I wonder how many might change their minds on abortion if they saw real, in utero video footage of the deadly deed being done.
.03 Moral victories are often sought to achieve political victories.
Democrats are obviously seizing on this “human tragedy” to criticize and perhaps delegitimize a president they detest. And, of course, the morals and sensibilities of everyone who leans right are thereby called into question, with the intent to not only influence elections but also stake out the proverbial high road for themselves.
And, as can be expected, many of them are so high they can see the whole landscape of human history and cannot help but notice the similarities between this immigration issue and Nazi Germany. Yet the administration is simply enforcing the laws that both parties had a hand in enacting.
.04 Many more children suffer more and for longer periods from divorce and absent fathers than from temporary separation due to illegal immigration.
If divorcing parents allowed cameras into their children’s lives we’d see a never-ending marathon of tears and heartbreak. But I doubt many of those piously denouncing and chastising all who aren’t also vocally indignant about what’s gone on at the border, would support stricter divorce laws. Many of them have put their own children through the pain of seeing their parents split up. Nor are they likely to post impassioned condemnations on social media of men who selfishly treat sex as a recreational activity, then abandon their responsibility as fathers when a child is conceived.
.05 Illegal immigration would decrease if more Americans were willing to do the jobs the immigrants have been filling.
There was a local ICE raid at a landscaping company this past week, and when interviewed by a news crew the company representatives told of the near impossibility of getting anyone from the community willing to do the work. But men from Mexico and Central America make the journey here, often illegally and with families, because they are not too proud to do manual labor, nor do they have an entitlement mentality.
How great a disservice have we done our young people and our society by awarding our children irrespective of effort or achievement, by coddling our teens and making fun a priority instead of preparing them for the hard work of adulthood, and by insisting they go to college while the trades are devalued and the jobs go unfilled? And if they’ve managed to get a degree, of course they’re too educated now to mow lawns and weed flower beds, even though they’ve largely partied their way through school and are unprepared to do much else.
Well, that was five cents so I guess I get change. I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks, Caroline. My wife, who is very politically minded, was enraged by the videos and audios of the Mexican children separated from their parents. It was a PR nightmare for Trump and needed to be changed. But I asked my wife where all the indignation was over the 650,000 babies aborted in the U.S. every year and she said it was apples and oranges.
I’m sorry she feels that way but, of course, she’s not alone. Immigration is a tough situation and we should do what we can for the sake of those children. But it just seems a little hypocritical to decry these separations but support the right to kill a child even up to the moment of birth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. It’s certainly not apples and oranges.
Early term fetuses have no consciousness or central nervous system, which means they have no ability to experience pain or suffering.
Forced birth on girls and women against their will is absolutely unethical and disgusting, and will never be a welcome policy in the US.
So if you go into a coma, can I kill you?
No because I’m not an early term fetus; It’s been several years now since I was a fertilized egg.
And you would have no justifiable reason to kill me anyways, unlike many early term pregnant couples and singles who have many reasons to choose abortion.
At what point does the fetus gain protected status?
When the lower boundaries of sentience begin to develop, around 20-24 weeks.
What exactly are the “lower boundaries of sentience” and why should that give the child protected status?
Sentience is conscious awareness and ability to experience things like pain;
The lower boundaries begin to be in place when the central nervous system and brain begin to develop, which as is generally around 24 weeks (which is why a 20 week cutoff is more than fair).
The fetus will begin to develop the ability to suffer physical pain and to experience conscious awareness after this 24 week mark, so it would be unethical to terminate the pregnancy at that point.
Up until that point of sentience though, the fetus is but a fertilized egg in the beginning phase of gestation.
That’s incorrect. The nervous system begins to develop by week 5: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
But you didn’t answer my question about why that should be the determining factor. Even the fertilized egg is human with unique DNA that only needs to be nourished so it can grow.
That article is a journal piece with outdated misinformation, not a peer reviewed scholarly article, there isn’t even an author or sources or studies cited.
In my brief piece https://wp.me/p8DoxM-Cj you can find a couple sources to accurate, up to date, reliable information regarding fetal science.
Sentience is the only factor in judging whether or not it is ethical to abort a fetus or not because it determines whether the fetus is capable of suffering or not; If not, then it is the prevention of gestation of a potential life without causing harm.
Preventing a life without pain to the fertilized egg is not unethical on any level.
There is no justification for a girl or woman to be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy at twenty weeks or less and forced to give birth against her will;
And the laws in secular nations will continue to reflect this position.
You said, “The lower boundaries begin to be in place when the central nervous system and brain begin to develop, which as is generally around 24 weeks.” That is incorrect, and here’s another more “up to date” source that affirms a 4 or 5 week point.
When the fetus actually can feel pain is debatable. But that cannot be what determines human value because, as I indicated earlier, you could kill someone in a coma without them feeling anything, and conceivably someone who is just asleep. If the inability to feel pain is not justification for having the right to kill born humans, it’s not justification for a right to kill unborn ones.
A fully formed person with a central nervous system and brain who has been born who falls into a coma has nothing to do with abortion of early term fetuses.
If a fetus is unable to suffer, human species or not, then there is no reason to force the girl or woman to keep the pregnancy and give birth against her will.
A fetus being of the human species does not give it intrinsic value that makes it unethical to prevent it’s gestation.
It is no longer debatable whether a fetus is able to experience pain or not; The information you have is extremely outdated. A doctor can easily do an ultrasound and determine with preciseness the stage of gestation.
Terminating the gestation of a fertilized egg has nothing to do with killing a person. It is a spiritually fanatical philosophy to expect the law to reflect your ideology that wants to push more people out in an overpopulated world.
Hundreds of millions of children need to be adopted and raised, and there are FAR more people in every country on the planet than there should be.
There is no justification for breeding at this point in history, but ESPECIALLY law enforced breeding against people’s will.
That is disgusting and will NEVER be put back into practice in the secular places it’s been corrected.
I forgot to include the link confirming the stage at which a child’s nervous system begins to develop. But it doesn’t matter because your argument is based on the child’s ability to feel pain, which does occur later, though to insist that, “It is no longer debatable whether a fetus is able to experience pain or not;” is clearly false. A report from the National Institutes of Health from 2016 states, “As a conclusion it could be proposed that the fetus is exposed to rudimentary painful stimuli starting from the 15th gestation week and that it is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli.”
You’ve been asserting that, “whether the fetus is capable of suffering or not” is what determines the moral component of abortion, but when I pointed out the logical outworking of this you switched to a developmental standard. “A fully formed person” has rights that an early term fetus does not. But at what developmental stage does it acquire the right to life? Certainly the fetus is viable before being completely fully formed. And we can argue that at birth the child is not a fully formed adult, which if allowed to live it will eventually grow into.
The scientific facts are that from conception the entity is alive, human, has unique DNA, is enclosed in and eventually connected to, but not part of the woman’s body, and if protected its body will grow in an amazing fashion and at an amazing rate until it is fit for life outside the womb.
But facts don’t seem to matter much to you when you assert things like, “Hundreds of millions of children need to be adopted and raised, and there are FAR more people in every country on the planet than there should be.” And, “There is no justification for breeding at this point in history, but ESPECIALLY law enforced breeding against people’s will.” Though there are certainly plenty of children in foster care, exaggerating the numbers doesn’t make an irrelevant argument any less so. And “there is no justification for breeding at this point in history”? You would like the human race to cease to exist, I assume? And there is NO “law enforced breeding.” These kinds of comments from pro-aborts just demonstrate how desperate and without justification for your position you are.