Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

[GaryTaylor]

I am lost. What pointed has been defeated, and how?

I am saying that if a bill was passed that had the three exceptions (incest, rape, life of the mother) that would equate to abortion on demand. That is obvious and not really debatable in any real sense.

I have no clue what you are talking about regarding murder (did I miss a bunch of posts?).

Abortionists have very little morals regarding abortion–most are quite strongly behind its legal status, and there is no way a bill would ever be passed that would include actions taken against abortionists or the pregnant women.

Thats because you nor Lilly followed the conversation and have a point. If abortion is murder which it would be then the reasoning of rape incest and possible death of the mother are either the truth or a lie. Thus my points stands…

If abortions are illegal and you fabricate a rape/incest or the mothers life is in question, your then liable for murder. First who with any integrity as a Dr would do so along with another individual to conspire to commit murder. Thats quite a yarn spun but not reality. Whats likely to happen is not different than the past-illegal abortion. But that escalated now to mass murder at the 1-million a year mark and promoted by Hillary. In which case you can answer that dilemma for yourself since that would exist anyway as it has. Be it Cruz or Trump no difference.

And btw legal abortion existed since life of the mother was always upheld that I remember and still is except in Catholic hosps

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Many have found comfort in the three exceptions, thinking that they are reasonable exceptions. But they are holding a false comfort because those three exceptions equal abortion on demand. The things you listed are the obvious ones, yet there are many more.

True.

 

[Little_Sheep]

That.

And Fox News (oh no, I’m blaming Fox News). They created an echo chamber that said everything the Republicans did was right and everything the Democrats did was wrong. It didn’t allow for thoughtful reflection on the failure of Bush and didn’t detect the underbelly of discontent about economic issues that has driven the Trump rise.

If the Trump nomination blows up Fox News, that would be great for the future of the Republican party.

Agree, Crossbones.

I would say it a little differently. I’ve never watched Fox and have no personal experience of it outside of headlines and internet memes, so I don’t feel like I can comment cogently on whatever it is they do.

But I do listen to Talk Radio and have plenty of experience with what’s going on there. Real blame must be laid at the feet of Talk Radio. They figured out that eco-chamber invective meant BIG DOLLARS and followed that money train, regardless of the cost to our nation.

I don’t know a lot about it, but once upon a time, there was something called the Fairness Doctrine which required equal airtime for differing political opinions. When that went away, these echo chambers popped up. These chambers are deeply destructive and of course, both sides have them now.

As I’ve said before, I hail from one of the most Conservative/Republican states in the union and I was raised by Conservatives. What has been done to the Republican Party does not make me happy and, though I lean left, it breaks my heart for many people.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thats because you nor Lilly followed the conversation and have a point. If abortion is murder which it would be then the reasoning of rape incest and possible death of the mother are either the truth or a lie. Thus my points stands…

If abortions are illegal and you fabricate a rape/incest or the mothers life is in question, your then liable for murder. First who with any integrity as a Dr would do so along with another individual to conspire to commit murder. Thats quite a yarn spun but not reality. Whats likely to happen is not different than the past-illegal abortion. But that escalated now to mass murder at the 1-million a year mark and promoted by Hillary. In which case you can answer that dilemma for youyrself since that would exist anyway as it has. Be ot Cruz or Trump no difference.

And btw legal abortion existed since life of the mother was always upheld that I remember and still is but in catholic hosps.

Gary, the doctor wouldn’t KNOW it was rape or incest. He takes his patient’s word for it. If I go to the doctor and say I’ve been suffering from sciatic pain, he doesn’t give me lie detector test, he takes my word for it and maybe sends me for an MRI. If a woman who wants an abortion tells her doctor she was raped or her baby is the product of incest, the doctor takes her word for it and refers her for an abortion. And, and Irishpatrick said, there are other reasons she can use. Many others. I agree with Irishpatrick, we shouldn’t go there on a public message board.

Abortion with exceptions is abortion on demand. No difference. Not a sliver of difference.

 

[baliano]

What if he chose Rubio or Santorum as his VP, and Cruz for the Supreme Court?

Why does that matter? He is the one asking for my vote and he isn’t worthy of it. What is more important to me is that there are enough Christian voters to elect a third party candidate who does reflect Christian standards and is more likely to nominate a SCOTUS candidate or VP that reflects Christian belief. Most voters will shrug and pick one o the chosen two whom they feel is the least evil. Evil is evil.

If we can’t break this system of two parties, each as bad as the other, during this cycle we are doomed as a nation, this election will most likely determine whether we are a constitutional nation, a nation of laws based on Judeo-Christian beliefs or sink deeper in despotism, godlessness and utter immorality.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, the doctor wouldn’t KNOW it was rape or incest. He takes his patient’s word for it. If I go to the doctor and say I’ve been suffering from sciatic pain,

The Dr would know abortions are illegal and its murder. No-one is taking anyones word with this type of consequence, its absurd thinking to blow a career for a lie . And if the woman was indeed raped or incest exists it can be proven through DNA very common today and we been through all this on this thread three times now.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Dr would know abortions are illegal and its murder. No-one is taking anyones word with this type of consequence, its absurd thinking to blow a career for a lie . And if the woman was indeed raped or incest exists it can be proven through DNA very common today and we been through all this on this thread three time now.

Gary, many women don’t know their rapist, and as has been said, there are many, many other reasons we can’t go into on this board.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, many women don’t know their rapist.

Then if you can’t prove your raped then you would be having a baby. Its absurd to think everyone will run in scream rape and receive an abortion. What they will do is what they have done and thats go to illegal Drs. And in the end abortion will be limited and the amount of cases you suggest would be in fact minimal.

 

[Ghosty]

I think you should re-read the thread its a point well covered already. Why would repeating a defeated point again be a valid point? Its a good point but a defeated point and in this thread.

If abortions are illegal and you fabricate a rape/incest or the mothers life is in question, your then liable for murder. First who with any integrity as a Dr would do so and go along with another individual to conspire to commit murder. Thats quite a yarn spun but not reality. Whats likely to happen is not different than the past-illegal abortion. But that escalated now to mass murder at the 1-million a year mark and promoted by Hillary. In which case you can answer that dilemma for yourself since that would exist anyway as it has. Be it Cruz or Trump no difference.

The flaw in your premise is that you don’t have to “fabricate” a rape, you just have to say it occurred. The abortion would have to be performed before a bearing out of “facts”, and in any case the victim can’t be compelled to go along with such an investigation.

“I was raped” leads to an abortion, and there is no way to force a follow up.

One further point that must be emphasized: allowing for abortion under ANY circumstances is pro-choice, regardless of what you call yourself. It is not “reasonable” to call yourself pro-life and then say you allow the choice of abortion in certain circumstances. That is an irrational, or dishonest, stance. The bottom line is that such a position supports the choice for abortion, and is therefore pro-choice.

One can argue that Donald Trump is less pro-choice than Hillary Clinton, but one can’t argue that he’s pro-life. He is for abortion, and that is just a fact straight from his own mouth.

Mary Bobo: Google the Sanctity of Life Act. It has been brought forward many times, including during majority Republican House AND Senate, and has never been supported by the Republican Party as a whole. It would simply define human life as beginning at conception; in the Roe v. Wade decision the Court said that Congress had the authority to define when life begins for the purpose of the 14th Amendment, so such a Bill would turn the Roe v. Wade decision into a pro-life ruling once it became law.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GaryTaylor]

The flaw in your premise is that you don’t have to “fabricate” a rape, you just have to say it occurred.

Not true and I’ll tell you why. If you or I were raped our responsibility is to report the crime. Showing up later due to pregnancy falls rather short in the scheme of things imho.

 

[andrewstx]

Trump gave a gracious victory speech, praising Ted Cruz for being “one hell of a competitor.”

Now if only Trump would also drop out, as well as Hillary and Sanders, that would be just perfect.

Who would that leave?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ill take the silence to mean; “Oh I didn’t think of that?”

 

[Ghosty]

Not true and I’ll tell you why. If you or I were raped our responsibility is to report the crime. Showing up later due to pregnancy falls rather short in the scheme of things imho.

No one is obligated to testify in such circumstances. They simply say “I was raped, and I don’t know who did it. I need an abortion.” If abortion in such circumstances is a right, then it would be unethical and illegal to deny an abortion based on lack of evidence or conviction, which means a rape would not have to be proven before an abortion is performed.

You can’t make the abortion contingent on later proof of rape, nor on later conviction, nor on later cooperation in an investigation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No one is obligated to testify in such circumstances.

Your obligated to report a crime and especially if you decide to claim abortion due to rape. What do you suppose you’ll stroll in whenever and say Dr I was raped and need an abortion while its murder? And he’ll say did your report the crime? Of course he will since he would be sticking his neck out.

 

[irishpatrick]

Your obligated to report a crime and especially if you decide to claim abortion due to rape. What do you suppose you’ll stroll in whenever and say Dr I was raped and need an abortion while its murder? And he’ll say did your report the crime? Of course he will since he would be sticking his neck out.

You are making the assumption that abortion will be criminalized and made equal to murder. This nation will never allow that. There are many non-verifiable reasons to give. I will not post them here.

Also, you are not taking into the obvious fact that no one will try to breach doctor patient privacy. No one plans to create an abortion police.

 

[irishpatrick]

You could send me a private message, of course, but I wouldn’t be able to respond to it in any other way and this portion of the debate would get nowhere.

I’m willing to stipulate that you believe there are really effective ways to falsify a life-threatening condition requiring therapeutic abortion. I say medical falsification is not so easy and is hazardous to the falsifier.

Now, I’m talking about “life of the mother” here.

I understand your reluctance to accept what I am saying without knowing the actual reasons. I will not send a private message, nor will I post it on a public forum. I refuse to create any form of scandal. I am a serious Catholic who does not take these matters lightly and I would love to see even a reduction in abortions. With that said, I am convinced that those three exceptions are ripe for abuse and it will be easy to circumvent.

 

[irishpatrick]

Not true and I’ll tell you why. If you or I were raped our responsibility is to report the crime. Showing up later due to pregnancy falls rather short in the scheme of things imho.

That is your scheme of things and it does not reflect reality in matters of such pain. Often women never report rape–we see how long it took abuse victims to come forth and many probably never did. There will be no way to tell if a woman is being truthful or not and no abortionist (who is already morally bankrupt) will take time to delve deeper.

 

[Ghosty]

Your obligated to report a crime and especially if you decide to claim abortion due to rape. What do you suppose you’ll stroll in whenever and say Dr I was raped and need an abortion while its murder? And he’ll say did your report the crime? Of course he will since he would be sticking his neck out.

It’s not murder if it is a right in the case of rape. When someone is shot, or stabbed, or beaten, they go to the ER and receive treatment first. In some cases there is requirement to report, so the police show up and ask questions. The person is under no obligation to give clear details, or any details for that matter. It’s a fifth amendment issue as well as a patient confidentiality issue. Saying “I didn’t see their face” is a legitimate, and in fact likely scenario in a rape (in the rapes I’ve dealt with this is exactly the response the victim gave, even when it was clear that they knew who did it). It is also possible that the victim fears retaliation and doesn’t want to disclose more than vague information.

This is all in “best case scenario”. In practical reality the police are not going to be called to come every doctor’s office with a rape kit each time an abortion is requested. It is impractical and a violation of the victim to put them through more invasive procedures just to receive the treatment that is their right under the law. The first time a victim was forced or compelled against their will to testify or give a detailed statement the case would go up through the Courts and the Supreme Court, even a conservative one, would have to rule that this was a violation of their rights.

There is simply no scenario in which abortion for rape can be a right, but then also require that the rape be proven before the abortion is allowed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No one is obligated to testify in such circumstances. They simply say “I was raped, and I don’t know who did it. I need an abortion.” If abortion in such circumstances is a right, then it would be unethical and illegal to deny an abortion based on lack of evidence or conviction, which means a rape would not have to be proven before an abortion is performed.

You can’t make the abortion contingent on later proof of rape, nor on later conviction, nor on later cooperation in an investigation.

In reports of rape, investigation is done immediately if law enforcement is aware of it, and even hospitals are required to have “rape kits” (testing and collection of forensic evidence) on hand. The government pays for them. Abortionists, of course, aren’t required to have and perform them.

Now, let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to do those simple tests and collections before performing an abortion. Now, let’s suppose it’s two months later, when all forensic evidence is gone. And let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to document the passage of time and total lack of any kind of evidence. And let’s also suppose some abortion doctor has an inordinate number of alleged rape victims upon whom he performs abortions. And then let’s suppose law enforcement sends him a “ringer”.

An abortionist would have to be pretty gutsy to build a business out of fake rapes.

 

[Peter_J]

If the Trump nomination blows up Fox News, that would be great for the future of the Republican party.

I don’t think that would happen. At most, I think FoxNews might become a secular version of … well, finish that how you will.