Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

[irishpatrick]

I hear a lot of folk taking about politicians who honour God. The only way any person honours God is to keep his Commandments.

1.Believe in God.
2.Do not worship anyone or anything except God; do not make, bow to, or worship an image or statue that is supposed to be God.
3.Do not take God’s name in vain.
4.Observe Sabbath, that means, rest on the seventh day.
5.Honor your parents.
6.Do not kill.
7.Do not commit adultery.
8.Do not steal.
9.Do not testify as a false witness.
10.Do not be jealous of anything someone else has.
Jesus goes on to add
11. Love God
12. Love your fellow human as much as you do yourself

Only politicians who follow these Commandments " honour God " I don’t know of a single one who does.

I think Rick Santorum comes very close.

 

[Ghosty]

The widest open door is created by the life of the mother exception.

Absolutely. Since life of the mother is expanded to include well-being (“I might hurt myself if I have this baby”) it leaves open every possible abortion if applied in the manner that it is typically understood in our culture.

Exceptions can’t be distinguished in a practical way, at least not in a free society in which we have some self-direction and protection in our health choices. Turning a doctor’s visit into Department of Corrections processing is usually the kind of thing most people balk at, especially supposed conservatives.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are light years between going through the Department of Corrections and receiving medical treatment from your doctor.

I never said that DNA tests can’t be done, I said that they can’t prove rape. Furthermore you can’t violate a patient’s confidentiality, nor force them to incriminate themselves, nor testify against someone else in order to receive medical treatment.

If someone says they were raped, they can get an abortion. That is the only practical implementation of such a view. You can’t force someone to disclose the identity of the rapist, and you can’t prove it was rape through a DNA test (which you can’t force anyway).

Turning a medical treatment for the victim of a purported crime into the equivalent of processing at the DOC is not only impractical, it is unethical and unconstitutional. If such an exception for rape is going to be made, then there must be functionally open access to abortion, and that is exactly what Trump has stood for throughout his public life.

Peace and God bless!

I do not find this easy to agree with.

If a pregnant woman or recently postpartum woman seeks Medicaid, she is asked who the father is. If she won’t tell, she is disqualified. If she tells, then the Dept of Social Services, which has special prosecutors all their own, will compel the putative father to take a DNA test. If he refuses, he can go to jail.

That’s done all the time. I don’t think the state is as privacy-conscious as you think it is.

 

[Ghosty]

“Since we can’t put the fire out in the way I see best, we might as well pour gasoline on it.”

Hardly.

Voting for a party that will do nothing to change the laws will not affect abortion one way or another. It is time to stop pretending that there is moral superiority in supporting candidates that are not against abortion but say the right things to get votes, as opposed to those who have simply dropped the pretense. One may make you feel better, but it is not more moral.

It is time for pro-life Republicans to realize that they are the new “Blue Dog” Democrats. Pro-life Democrats are often derided on these forums, but Pro-life Republicans are quickly ending up in a similar boat. I would argue that the writing has been on the wall for years, and now it is a flashing billboard.

If you agree with other Republican views then by all means support them, but let’s drop the pretense of moral superiority on abortion, at least on a party level. The Republican Platform regarding abortion has never been implemented, nor seriously attempted on a party-wide level. Folks like Ron and Rand Paul have made serious attempts, but have never enjoyed Party support despite pro-life supposedly being a plank of the platform.

At the end of the day Trump, per his beliefs, will do no more to help the unborn than Hillary, at least if he’s honest about his stance.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You said it far better than I have.

The Republican Party, along with Trump, and the majority of its voters, are not pro-life.

There is prolife and there is prolife. The majority of people want limitations on abortion, especially on partial birth abortion. Virtually every Republican congress person has high ratings from National Right to Life, and very low ratings from NARAL.

At some point, one really has to listen to sources outside his own head. It’s true, some candidates are “perfectly” prolife according to the standards of some. But when a prolife person is faced with a choice between a “fairly” prolife person and an outright abortion supporter, and those are the only choices, the search for perfection becomes the enemy of the good.

It is interesting that the pro-abortion forces encourage and promote insistence on perfection among those who are prolife. It’s simply one of their strategies to keep abortion on demand sacrosanct. It’s a shame that too many well-intentioned people allow themselves to be fooled by that.

 

[Ghosty]

I do not find this easy to agree with.

If a pregnant woman or recently postpartum woman seeks Medicaid, she is asked who the father is. If she won’t tell, she is disqualified. If she tells, then the Dept of Social Services, which has special prosecutors all their own, will compel the putative father to take a DNA test. If he refuses, he can go to jail.

That’s done all the time. I don’t think the state is as privacy-conscious as you think it is.

Again, this isn’t the same as receiving medical treatment. You are describing someone that is seeking government money to assist with a pregnancy. In the case of abortion, “I don’t know who the father is, I was raped. I just want an abortion” is all that needs to be said. Such a woman will not be compelled to carry the child until the identity of the father is confirmed. They certainly won’t be compelled to carry the child until conviction.

Such a stance is totally unworkable without open access to abortion. It really is an all or nothing proposition in all practicality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Republican Platform regarding abortion has never been implemented, nor seriously attempted on a party-wide level. Folks like Ron and Rand Paul have made serious attempts, but have never enjoyed Party support despite pro-life supposedly being a plank of the platform.

Astonishingly wrong.

Every bit of legislation coming out of the states that limit abortion are acts passed by Repubs, not Democrats. And a lot of them have worked to limit abortion and the butcheries where they are performed.

G.W. Bush did a lot of things to thwart abortion. Every single one of them was then undone by Obama.

Two things Bush did were to appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. In the “partial birth abortion” case, Carhart vs. Gonzales, every Repub on the court voted to uphold the bans. Every single Democrat appointee voted in favor of partial birth abortion.

Politics does matter in all of this. It’s easy to dismiss some very hard-won prolife partial victories, but victories there have been. And it’s always the Repubs who have won them, and always against Democrat opposition.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

Hardly.

Voting for a party that will do nothing to change the laws will not affect abortion one way or another. It is time to stop pretending that there is moral superiority in supporting candidates that are not against abortion but say the right things to get votes, as opposed to those who have simply dropped the pretense. One may make you feel better, but it is not more moral.

It is time for pro-life Republicans to realize that they are the new “Blue Dog” Democrats. Pro-life Democrats are often derided on these forums, but Pro-life Republicans are quickly ending up in a similar boat. I would argue that the writing has been on the wall for years, and now it is a flashing billboard.

If you agree with other Republican views then by all means support them, but let’s drop the pretense of moral superiority on abortion, at least on a party level. The Republican Platform regarding abortion has never been implemented, nor seriously attempted on a party-wide level. Folks like Ron and Rand Paul have made serious attempts, but have never enjoyed Party support despite pro-life supposedly being a plank of the platform.

At the end of the day Trump, per his beliefs, will do no more to help the unborn than Hillary, at least if he’s honest about his stance.

Well put!

 

[GaryTaylor]

There are light years between going through the Department of Corrections and receiving medical treatment from your doctor.

Medical treatments is non sequitur, if abortion is banned/illegal, and a woman is raped or in fact incest comes into question your now talking a felony, why minimize this as merely a check up for a cold. We would be talking in fact crime a felony to be determined.

I never said that DNA tests can’t be done, I said that they can’t prove rape. Furthermore you can’t violate a patient’s confidentiality, nor force them to incriminate themselves, nor testify against someone else in order to receive medical treatment.

What was said …

There is no practical way to investigate

Which in fact I just showed to be false. DNA related to a felony case is common today and quite practical. And yes its part of a preponderance of evidence just like the DOC which in fact will prove rape. Incriminate is a secondary response, if your innocent of rape than volunteer DNA is quite real. If your not innocent as we see its still quite probable to aquire DNA. And that doesn’t consider new law in relation which is also plausible such as a ward of the state which isn’t only DOC but a recent example of changed law.

If someone says they were raped, they can get an abortion. That is the only practical implementation of such a view. You can’t force someone to disclose the identity of the rapist, and you can’t prove it was rape through a DNA test (which you can’t force anyway).

Not a fact an assumption and speculation as no one here is a arbiter of practical. And further your repeating an addressed point.

Turning a medical treatment for the victim of a purported crime into the equivalent of processing at the DOC is not only impractical, it is unethical and unconstitutional. If such an exception for rape is going to be made, then there must be functionally open access to abortion, and that is exactly what Trump has stood for throughout his public life.

Peace and God bless!

Not at all, though I see your still kicking it around in your mind. If a woman claims rape and claims its me for example then first I would give up the DNA and second they would in fact need other evidence. If I did rape someone and refused a DNA test suggesting guilt then police can further investigate as we know and they have done. Then again the case could be cut and dry also and one could confess.

 

[Ghosty]

Astonishingly wrong.

Every bit of legislation coming out of the states that limit abortion are acts passed by Repubs, not Democrats. And a lot of them have worked to limit abortion and the butcheries where they are performed.

G.W. Bush did a lot of things to thwart abortion. Every single one of them was then undone by Obama.

Two things Bush did were to appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. In the “partial birth abortion” case, Carhart vs. Gonzales, every Repub on the court voted to uphold the bans. Every single Democrat appointee voted in favor of partial birth abortion.

Politics does matter in all of this. It’s easy to dismiss some very hard-won prolife partial victories, but victories there have been. And it’s always the Repubs who have won them, and always against Democrat opposition.

I have never said that Republicans do no good. There are pro-life Democrats as well, for that matter. What I have said is that, on a national level, the Republican Party has done nothing.

As for partial-birth abortion bans, while laudable they are not about ending abortion but rather just a grousome form of it. Just as I wouldn’t claim banning the guillotine is a step towards ending the deathpenalty, I don’t claim that ending partial-birth abortion is a stab against abortion on demand. It is a good, to be sure, but it is not even truly in the direction of ending abortion, merely sanitizing them and making sure the most grousome methods aren’t employed.

Vote for pro-life politicians, but don’t argue that Republican is inherently more pro-life, or is “the party of life”. It is not, at least not anymore.

Peaceand God bless!

 

[irishpatrick]

Absolutely. Since life of the mother is expanded to include well-being (“I might hurt myself if I have this baby”) it leaves open every possible abortion if applied in the manner that it is typically understood in our culture.

Exceptions can’t be distinguished in a practical way, at least not in a free society in which we have some self-direction and protection in our health choices. Turning a doctor’s visit into Department of Corrections processing is usually the kind of thing most people balk at, especially supposed conservatives.

Peace and God bless!

I agree. Sadly.

 

[Vanny]

Hardly.

Voting for a party that will do nothing to change the laws will not affect abortion one way or another. It is time to stop pretending that there is moral superiority in supporting candidates that are not against abortion but say the right things to get votes, as opposed to those who have simply dropped the pretense. One may make you feel better, but it is not more moral.

It is time for pro-life Republicans to realize that they are the new “Blue Dog” Democrats. Pro-life Democrats are often derided on these forums, but Pro-life Republicans are quickly ending up in a similar boat. I would argue that the writing has been on the wall for years, and now it is a flashing billboard.

If you agree with other Republican views then by all means support them, but let’s drop the pretense of moral superiority on abortion, at least on a party level. The Republican Platform regarding abortion has never been implemented, nor seriously attempted on a party-wide level. Folks like Ron and Rand Paul have made serious attempts, but have never enjoyed Party support despite pro-life supposedly being a plank of the platform.

At the end of the day Trump, per his beliefs, will do no more to help the unborn than Hillary, at least if he’s honest about his stance.

Exactly.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I have never said that Republicans do no good. There are pro-life Democrats as well, for that matter. What I have said is that, on a national level, the Republican Party has done nothing.

As for partial-birth abortion bans, while laudable they are not about ending abortion but rather just a grousome form of it. Just as I wouldn’t claim banning the guillotine is a step towards ending the deathpenalty, I don’t claim that ending partial-birth abortion is a stab against abortion on demand. It is a good, to be sure, but it is not even truly in the direction of ending abortion, merely sanitizing them and making sure the most grousome methods aren’t employed.

Vote for pro-life politicians, but don’t argue that Republican is inherently more pro-life, or is “the party of life”. It is not, at least not anymore.

Peaceand God bless!

This is what I have been saying for some time.

 

[irishpatrick]

There is prolife and there is prolife. The majority of people want limitations on abortion, especially on partial birth abortion. Virtually every Republican congress person has high ratings from National Right to Life, and very low ratings from NARAL.

At some point, one really has to listen to sources outside his own head. It’s true, some candidates are “perfectly” prolife according to the standards of some. But when a prolife person is faced with a choice between a “fairly” prolife person and an outright abortion supporter, and those are the only choices, the search for perfection becomes the enemy of the good.

It is interesting that the pro-abortion forces encourage and promote insistence on perfection among those who are prolife. It’s simply one of their strategies to keep abortion on demand sacrosanct. It’s a shame that too many well-intentioned people allow themselves to be fooled by that.

I would be all for any true restrictions on abortion and I would very much support a one bite at a time approach. However, in Trump, we have a pro-choice person. Anyone who supports the three major exceptions is NOT prolife, no matter what they say.

 

[Ghosty]

Medical treatments is non sequitur, if abortion is banned/illegal, and a woman is raped or in fact incest comes into question your now talking a felony, why minimize this as merely a check up for a cold. We would be talking in fact crime a felony to be determined.

What was said …

Which in fact I just showed to be false. DNA related to a felony case is common today and quite practical. And yes its part of a preponderance of evidence just like the DOC which in fact will prove rape. Incriminate is a secondary response, if your innocent of rape than volunteer DNA is quite real. If your not innocent as we see its still quite probable to aquire DNA. And that doesn’t consider new law in relation which is also plausible such as a ward of the state which isn’t only DOC but a recent example of changed law.

Not a fact an assumption and speculation as no one here is a arbiter of practical. And further your repeating an addressed point.

Not at all, though I see your still kicking it around in your mind. If a woman claims rape and claims its me for example then first I would give up the DNA and second they would in fact need other evidence. If I did rape someone and refused a DNA test suggesting guilt then police can further investigate as we know and they have done. Then again the case could be cut and dry also and one could confess.

Shooting someone in an armed robbery is a felony. Treating gunshots in a hospital even leads to mandatory reporting of the gunshot to the authorities. We do not, however, make treatment of the victim of a robbery contingent on their identification of, and testimony against, the perpetrator.

I have seen people get shot, and when interviewed by the police in the ER simply tell them “I don’t want to get involved”. A woman that was truly raped can’t sit around waiting for positive identification of the rapist and proper vetting of her story before she is allowed an abortion. This is especially true with regards to rape by a spouse or boyfriend, or if they simply got drunk and passed out at a club. Abortion can’t be tied to the legal process, practically speaking, because it has a limited time in which to be applied.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vote for pro-life politicians, but don’t argue that Republican is inherently more pro-life, or is “the party of life”. It is not, at least not anymore.

Of course it is and the idea one made the case here otherwise is so far from the truth we can safely state its fictional.

 

[irishpatrick]

Of course it is and the idea one made the case here otherwise is so far from the truth we can safely state its fictional.

Then, prove your case.

 

[Corki]

Shooting someone in an armed robbery is a felony. Treating gunshots in a hospital even leads to mandatory reporting of the gunshot to the authorities. We do not, however, make treatment of the victim of a robbery contingent on their identification of, and testimony against, the perpetrator.

I have seen people get shot, and when interviewed by the police in the ER simply tell them “I don’t want to get involved”. A woman that was truly raped can’t sit around waiting for positive identification of the rapist and proper vetting of her story before she is allowed an abortion. This is especially true with regards to rape by a spouse or boyfriend, or if they simply got drunk and passed out at a club. Abortion can’t be tied to the legal process, practically speaking, because it has a limited time in which to be applied.

Peace and God bless!

The difference being that, in the case of the gunshot victim, **no one else is killed **based on whether the victim was involved or willing to testify/point to a perpetrator.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Shooting someone in an armed robbery is a felony. Treating gunshots in a hospital even leads to mandatory reporting of the gunshot to the authorities.

Its a felony period, during the course of a felony the degree escalates. Sure it leads to the hosp contacting the police whats the point?

We do not, however, make treatment of the victim of a robbery contingent on their identification of, and testimony against, the perpetrator.

We do however investigate rape just as I have stated. So your shooting analogy may hold water with you but falls short with me. Sorry I fail to see a point.

Me too and I have been shot, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing again there’s no relevant relationship to a woman claiming rape or incest. The supposed suspect aspect was covered and un responded to on my last post. You simply presented non sequitur points and never addressed the previous points I made.

A woman that was truly raped can’t sit around waiting for positive identification of the rapist and proper vetting of her story before she is allowed an abortion.

True and since we would have to trust to a degree think about the legal implications of her committing murder under a false pretense.

This is especially true with regards to rape by a spouse or boyfriend, or if they simply got drunk and passed out at a club. Abortion can’t be tied to the legal process, practically speaking, because it has a limited time in which to be applied.

This doesn’t change anything discussed. And yes it could as I have stated making your assessment well wrong again.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think it’s funny how people here, always find a way to blame everything on Democrats, or like they say here “the liberals”.

It reminds me of a joke that Jay Leno stated in his show when Bush was president and gas throughout the country was 4 bucks a galloon.

At the time, people were upset, and this is were Jay Leno made the joke, which reminds me of the finger pointing that goes on here.

Jay Leno: “It’s funny and ironic how Bush asked the house Republicans to investigate the oil companies into the issue of high gas prices. That’s great, Republicans asking republicans to investigate Republicans. You know who their going to blame? Democrats”.

I get it folks, democrats accept abortion and gay marriage, but that is not the main thing affecting the country. That doesn’t mean I’m saying ignore those topics, but we can not blame every Republican mishap on democrats, or HRC or the left.

I agree it is funny. But as you point out even the faithful are not to insist only on abortion and gay marriage. Pope Francis said it himself. And he said Catholics “have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel”.

americamagazine.org/pope-interview