Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

[Ghosty]

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.

The Republican Party will be nominating an openly pro-choice Donald Trump. He has even said he disagrees with the pro-life platform, and he has been overwhelmingly winning the popular Republican vote.

This is “one bite at a time” in reverse. Accepting Trump isn’t “at least he’s better than Hillary”, it’s accepting that the pro-life stance is not fundamental to Republican values. To continue to blindly support the Party as a whole at this point would be to endorse this reality.

A challenge must be issued to the Republican party: endorse the pro-life cause whole heartedly or lose the pro-life vote. Simply giving the vote unquestioningly has given us a pro-choice Republican nominee.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mary_bobo]

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!

Since you are so adamant that the GOP has doing nothing on abortion, please give us just how and what they could do.

 

[irishpatrick]

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

The Pope did not say we are to reduce the importance of stopping abortion, etc. He was saying that we must not forget the other issues as well, and any well formed Catholic knows that well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Republican Party will be nominating an openly pro-choice Donald Trump. He has even said he disagrees with the pro-life platform, and he has been overwhelmingly winning the popular Republican vote.

The only pro choice candidate is Hillary between the two, there’s no reason to believe Trump is pro choice and nothing of late indicates this and its disingenuous just as me stating Hillary is a racist and will persecute gays when elected with her ever changing view last 8-years. . Its a straw man again with speculation and we have been through the failed point 5-times on this thread. You’ll have to do better and to date no-one has but to make wild accusations.

 

[Ghosty]

Since you are so adamant that the GOP has doing nothing on abortion, please give us just how and what they could do.

When there were Republican Majorities in both House and Senate they could have voted on (and passed) the various Bills put forward by Ron and Rand Paul that would have officially stated that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, thus responding to the Supreme Court’s referral back to Congress in its Roe v. Wade ruling. That would have been the easiest and most definitive step.
Peace and God bless!

 

[Tomdstone]

The Republican Party will be nominating an openly pro-choice Donald Trump. He has even said he disagrees with the pro-life platform, and he has been overwhelmingly winning the popular Republican vote.

This is “one bite at a time” in reverse. Accepting Trump isn’t “at least he’s better than Hillary”, it’s accepting that the pro-life stance is not fundamental to Republican values. To continue to blindly support the Party as a whole at this point would be to endorse this reality.

A challenge must be issued to the Republican party: endorse the pro-life cause whole heartedly or lose the pro-life vote. Simply giving the vote unquestioningly has given us a pro-choice Republican nominee.

Peace and God bless!

Hillary is solidly pro-choice. She even demands that religious beliefs be changed. Trump has said he is pro-life with a few exceptions such as incest or rape.

 

[Ghosty]

The only pro choice candidate is Hillary between the two, there’s no reason to believe Trump is pro choice and nothing of late indicates this and its disingenuous just me stating Hillary is a racist and will persecute gays when elected with her ever changing view last 8-years. . Its a straw man again with speculation and we have been through the failed point 5-times on this thread. You’ll have to better and to date no-one has but to make wild accusations.

Donald Trump has stated that he is pro-choice, he just hasn’t used that term. Supporting the right to an abortion in the cases of rape and incest is a pro-choice position, period. It is saying that in those circumstances the woman should have the choice to murder her child. There is simply no way around this fact.

As to your previous attempts to get around the implications of abortion on demand, I will reiterate that medical treatment of a victim can’t be contingent on identification or conviction of a perpetrator. If abortion is allowed in the case of rape, it must be allowed to be performed before a perpetrator is even identified, let alone prior to a rape being actually proven. In the case of rape there must be identification of the perp by the victim, proof that the child is the perp’s, and proof that there was indeed a rape. All of this will take more than nine months, so the abortion must be performed before rape is actually established. Once the abortion is performed the woman is under no obligation identify the perp, if she even can in the first place.

In effect, there must be abortion on demand with the potential for follow up, but even then the follow up is severely limited by the cooperation of the woman. For all practical purposes this amounts to simple abortion on demand, with the justification being that women that are raped may want and deserve an abortion. It is a pro-choice position, and one that can’t be practically limited to just the cases it intends to exempt.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Hillary is solidly pro-choice. She even demands that religious beliefs be changed. Trump has said he is pro-life with a few exceptions such as incest or rape.

There is no such thing as “pro-life with a few exceptions”, neither morally nor practically. If you allow the choice to murder your child in the case of an unproven rape (which is what it must be if the exemption is allowed at all), then you giving the mother the choice to murder her child.

It’s not advocacy of murder, but it is most certainly pro-choice, not pro-life.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GaryTaylor]

When there were Republican Majorities in both House and Senate they could have voted on (and passed) the various Bills put forward by Ron and Rand Paul that would have officially stated that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, thus responding to the Supreme Court’s referral back to Congress in its Roe v. Wade ruling. That would have been the easiest and most definitive step.
Peace and God bless!

But then again thats why americans elected Trump because of the insider issues of DC and frustration with the peoples will.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I agree with you. The Republican Party will continue in name only. Trump has defiled it and caused what was truly conservative to disappear. He has torn the party to shreds. How it will reinvent itself, I have no idea. And, if Trump should become president and fail to deliver on his plethora of promises, then I think he will be the most unpopular president of all time.

The Republican powers that be are the ones who destroyed the party.This by going along to get along . They have squandered their opportunities to affect change when they had control.They inept and loathe to rock the boat.How is DonalnTrump responsible for the demise of the party? He is the presumptive nominee because of where the party is currently,not in spite of it

 

[Joe_5859]

Is this the first time there will be a Republican candidate for President that has never held office before?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Republican Party will be nominating an openly pro-choice Donald Trump. He has even said he disagrees with the pro-life platform, and he has been overwhelmingly winning the popular Republican vote.

This is “one bite at a time” in reverse. Accepting Trump isn’t “at least he’s better than Hillary”, it’s accepting that the pro-life stance is not fundamental to Republican values. To continue to blindly support the Party as a whole at this point would be to endorse this reality.

A challenge must be issued to the Republican party: endorse the pro-life cause whole heartedly or lose the pro-life vote. Simply giving the vote unquestioningly has given us a pro-choice Republican nominee.

Peace and God bless!

The Republican Party’s heart has not been with pro-life or pro-family issues for a long time. But the GOP has gotten to depend on Christian votes, so they keep up the pretense. Not that there aren’t some in the GOP that are sincerely pro-life.

This was all exposed years ago by a Bush/Cheney insider, David Kuo, in his book Tempting Faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Donald Trump has stated that he is pro-choice, he just hasn’t used that term. Supporting the right to an abortion in the cases of rape and incest is a pro-choice position, period.!

Your point is one of semantics now as the Democrats intend to do nothing but promote murder with Hillary and quite contrary to the banned abortion point you describe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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!

No. If a woman is pregnant due to a rape, the child’s DNA is part of the evidence. It’s entirely possible to get DNA from a child in utero, and it’s done all the time. Obviously, that would depend on the length of the pregnancy.

 

[Thom18]

Kasich got out earlier today as well so I can’t vote for him, and I refuse to vote democrat.

In other words, I’m not voting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

He wasn’t, at that point, talking about abortion alone, let alone making some kind of statement that you can accept abortion on demand in a candidate if the candidate says something attractive to you about, say, banning coal.

here’s what he said in the immediately preceding paragraph:

““We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

I realize Clinton supporters will hunt high and low for ways to make Catholics think supporting Hillary Clinton is just fine if you like some policy or other of hers, or even just because she’s a woman. But the Pope is not endorsing support for abortion on demand candidates, and it’s wrong to suggest that he is.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I don’t want to make any predictions on that one way or another, because I don’t know what
Trump really believes.

However, I do believe that he has hurt the prolife movement already.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Kasich got out earlier today as well so I can’t vote for him, and I refuse to vote democrat.

In other words, I’m not voting.

That’s support for abortion on demand, then. You might hate Trump, you might think you have judged his heart correctly. But to yield the field to the like of Hillary Clinton is irresponsible.

 

[Peter_J]

Kasich got out earlier today as well so I can’t vote for him, and I refuse to vote democrat.

In other words, I’m not voting.

Are you familiar with the Constitution Party?

Let me give you some brochures you can look at later.



But seriously, whatever you decide remember the down ballot elections.

 

[chero23]

That’s support for abortion on demand, then. You might hate Trump, you might think you have judged his heart correctly. But to yield the field to the like of Hillary Clinton is irresponsible.

No that Is not true, just bc were going to sit out doesn’t mean were in favor of abortion. You sure do like to point the finger at other people.

Trump is still not sure what his position in abortion is. He can change at any moment. So if you vote for him and he becomes president, and starts accepting abortion are you going to plead the 5th?

This is a lose lose situation for the country.