PopeWatch: Rights

Last I checked, rights were largely about having access to opportunities (life being the one main exception, being inalienable), rather than having results handed to you. Papa Frank and the other globalists/commies definitely subscribe to the latter.

“Parents have the responsibility to provide those things to children.”

Ofcourse. No argument there. But when parents fail to provide because of either negligence or genuine inability then what do you suppose we do with the children? A child is categorised as a dependant because they depend on an adult to provide becuse they do not have the resources or maturity to provide for themselves, generally speaking. When a parent fails then it is government obligation to step in. Whether we agree or not. That’s what civilised societies do.

“Food, healthcare, education, free-time, etc. are the fruits of those rights.”

What? Forgive me, but a child’s right to life (future), liberty (present) and justly acquired property (past) is obsolete without food, healthcare, education etc…

I understand that the Pope is being calculated here because, reading between the lines, he is taking a dig at Trumps border policy. However, taken as he has stated it, he is in fact correct. It’s one of those “broken clocks is correct” moments.

And right to religious freedom. Don’t forget the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

“But when parents fail to provide because of either negligence or genuine inability then what do you suppose we do with the children?”

That’s the wrong question, but it’s the one the liberals want you to ask, because the answer is, naturally, the removal of the parent’s rights to raise their own children, and giving those rights to the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Health and the courts.

“When a parent fails then it is government obligation to step in.”

Define “step in” … I guarantee your definition will be completely ignored by the globalists Francis is trying to impress here.

“That’s what civilised societies do.”

They took children away from parents who wouldn’t let them be injected with experimental, myocarditis-causing healthcare.

They took children away from parents who wouldn’t give them the liberty to choose their own gender, pronouns and hormones.

They’ve mandated that children as young as 5 years old are educated in depraved gender ideologies without the parents’ consent.

Exactly which societies are civilized anymore?

“When a parent fails then it is government obligation to step in. Whether we agree or not. That’s what civilised societies do.”

Hmm. Seems to me that’s what civilized societies DON’T do. For society to act, we need to have well-defined and agreed-upon notions both about what constitutes “failure” and what the appropriate response will be. We have neither.
I’d say principles of subsidiarity and solidarity require that parents ought be expected to raise their children. Only in more severe cases should anyone else be involved routinely. Even in these cases, our friends, relatives, churches, and general civic organizations ought respond first, using societal–government–resources only as a last resort.
Or, put differently, there SHOULD be a stigma on food stamps, public housing, public health care, public transportation, and other public means. …Perhaps even public libraries. …Much as I’m pained to write that…. We should uphold the ideal of citizens being capable in their occupations and vocations, generous with their well-earned resources.
By these, even if one doesn’t believe in Christ, one still has ample incentive to be capable and improve one’s lot in life.

It’s precisely because we refuse to admit that suffering happens, and we over-emphasize solidarity, we have turned restraint on it’s head. We have–sometimes forcibly–shoved parents, friends, relatives, and civic organizations aside. Instead of having the State as the very last resort, …we expect the State to act almost before Johnny has stubbed his toe.

“Pay for your mother’s nursing home care out of pocket.”
We have insurance for a reason.

In general, we have become entirely too depending on government to solve problems. We see fit to regulate health care–and other industries–heavily, then decide government can fix the problem when costs rise accordingly.

“That’s the wrong question, but it’s the one the liberals want you to ask”

Put politics aside. We don’t claim to be pro-life because it aligns with our politics. We are pro-life because it is morally correct. Period. We are talking about basic fundamentals which apply to all human being because we are created in His image and likeness, for God and to eventually be with God.

The rest is chatter. I’ll agree to disagree.

We have insurance for a reason.
==
No you don’t. Commercial long-term-care insurance has hair-trigger underwriting standards. My sister-in-law was turned down for ‘spinal stenosis’. She’s a gym rat without an ounce of extra fat. Both her parents lived past 90 and could be cared for at home. Her mother began to fade mentally only nearing her centanary. I was turned down on account of having had spinal fusion surgery at age 19.

What’s with the “free time” business. What the heck does that even mean and, by the way, who measures it.

Depending on which US government estimates you look at, because of the Biden administration’s unwillingness to enforce our border laws somewhere between 350K and 500K children were trafficked over our southern border just in the past four years.

Now as I recall, Francis just got done criticizing President Trump because he was enforcing our immigration laws and trying to secure our borders— and thereby making it much more difficult to traffic children.

So you’d think Francis would be all for a policy that would curtail child trafficking, but as we have seen, being consistent and thinking things through is not the man’s strong suit.

“Correct I don’t care about the realities of government”

Clearly

“Spare me your lecture on the CC101″

Just as soon as you refrain from lecturing others as to the true meaning of ‘pro-life’.

… Besides, it’s not a lecture … I cite examples and sources (such as the CCC), you spout feelings and platitudes. And while we’re critiquing each other’s debate styles, please fight the urge to assume other people’s life experiences and positions … you guess wrong a lot.

I wasn’t talking to you. You decided to chime
In CAG.

“… Besides, it’s not a lecture … I cite examples and sources (such as the CCC), you spout feelings and platitudes.”

Yeah I don’t agree with you. Im looking at it from a mum’s point of view. I have no issue with feelings or platitudes.

I do find it very annoying when people immediately leap to the worst-possible-case scenario. 
==
Once more with feeling. No doubt if you audited the work of family courts and local child protective, you’d find some scandals. Please recall, however, that only a small minority of youngsters (< 1%) are in foster care. Those are the worst case scenarios.

“Once more with feeling.”
“Please recall, however, that only a small minority of youngsters (< 1%) are in foster care.”
I would find critiques of social systems far more credible if people focused on these factors first. For all Ezabelle’s intent may be worthy, the whole thing about “I’m a Mom” doesn’t help me solve a problem.
I still think we’d be far better off scrapping the foster care system though. I’ve seen very little evidence that it truly fosters moral attitudes and behaviors. ..Then again, our public school systems don’t impress me much in that vein either. Precisely because we have that few severely troubled homes, there won’t be enough concern to generate political will to change anything. We’d need to convert the nation to Catholic faith first. ..Oh, but if our bishops would worry more about evangelism than on “converting” the nation by immigration…..*sigh*

Please pardon the previous input. Computer/man miscomm.

“the whole thing about “I’m a Mom” doesn’t help me solve a problem.”

Since when was it meant to solve a problem? You are not proposing a viable solution to when parents fail to care for their children and there is nobody but the State to look after them and provide for them- regardless whether it’s less than 1% of cases, temporary or permanent. Be practical. It pays to think like a parent whether you are one or not, because you won’t understand or know the child’s needs unless you put into place solutions which minimise the effects of that child not having one.

And to add – if a relative takes over the care of the child, what makes you assume they have the means to financially support them without government assistance?

Just because the system is flawed, allowing people to abuse it, it doesn’t mean you do away with a system completely.

And just because a citizen is not old enough to work to pay taxes, it doesn’t mean the government has the right to neglect them.

Neglected children grow into deviant adults. Then you will have the State paying for their board and meals in Prison.

Children have rights. Yes they do.

“Allow churches and other organisation’s to open orphanages for that 1% of the children whose parents we agree have failed.”

Ok – you do realise that also relies on consistent donations and government funding… St Vincent De Paul receives government funding. Which of course comes from taxes.

A viable solution? Scrap the welfare state.
==
Show your work.

So, it seems the discussion has veered away from a question of right/wrong, moral/immoral and into one of affordable/unaffordable?

Yes, I believe raising children in Sparta was cheaper than in Athens.

Just my 2¢ …

’ve been looking at parents and churches raising families, not government. I typically assume parents know more about moral standards than does government.
==
No one has asserted that institutional care improves on ordinary families. (Churches very seldom operate orphanages). The use of foster care is exceedingly selective and the hands on work is done by ordinary people (often with other children in the home).
==
What you haven’t been doing is actually running the numbers.

“What you haven’t been doing is actually running the numbers.”
You presented a 1% number a few days past. I don’t have any cause to contest it.
This number may be statistically insignificant, especially for federal or state budgets overall. Such does not mean we’re required to resign ourselves to only this answer.

“Churches very seldom operate orphanages”
Yet the USCCB has been assisting illegal aliens under government contract for over 20 years. We could readily re-direct those efforts. Remember those rice bowls we used to have at Lent? Seems to me we could readily direct those funds toward sustaining orphans.

“But these are the numbers. But these are the exceptions that exist- in small numbers- yet they exist. And are supported through government funds, paid for through taxes.”
I didn’t see any numbers or proportions there.
One of the worst traits of taxes? We don’t think creatively. We assume we have no other workable options, …we shut down any effort to look for a better answer.

Many of these children go on to be exceptional citizens despite the cards they have been dealt through no fault of their own.
==
There’s no category of the population wherein ‘many’ are exceptional citizens. The thing about exceptional people is that they’re exceptional. If the graduates of the foster care system – who often have a wretched heritage and move around from one household to another – are not on the police blotter, you’re doing a passable job. The one I know best was not in the system long. She has a limited skill set because her mother was a lousy drunk. She has some sort of equivalency, works for a living, and lives with her father (who got on the wagon in 2001 and has a satisfactory job).

“There’s no category of the population wherein ‘many’ are exceptional citizens.”

Not true- Steve Jobs spent part of his life in foster care. Eddie Murphy (and brother) has been vocal about how his childhood in foster care moulded his sense of humour. Simone Biles, Anita Baker, Ray Charles (at age 15yo), Sylvester Stallone (and brother), Babe Ruth, James Dean. Eleanor Roosevelt was raised in kinship care. These are exceptional citizens who excelled in their chosen paths and have left a legacy beyond just staying out of jail. Craig Foster (Australian and AO) a former Socceroo was raised in foster care. The foster care system in Australia takes pressure off law enforcement and the court system when it comes to youth indigenous crime and delinquency. Child neglect in the indigenous community is an ongoing issue.

“One has to wonder why more parents don’t opt to place their children into foster care where the odds of them becoming exceptional are so high.”

Snarky as usual.

“Snarky as usual.”

I made a valid point in a humorous way. A point which, like many in this thread, you’ve chosen not to address, opting instead to trash the messenger.

I guess it’s just easier to ignore the definitions of words like “many” and “exceptional” (exception – al) than to concede a point.