Posted on 03/30/2016 2:07:44 PM PDT by xzins
The Cruz campaign has gone on record supporting women getting abortions. The campaign says there should be no punishment for those women if abortion is illegal. Deadline Hollywood reports:
Ted Cruz campaign chairman Chad Sweet...this afternoon told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Cruz believes in punishment for doctors who perform abortions, not the women who get them.
Pro-life supporters are scratching their heads. If they succeed in getting a pro-life amendment, Ted Cruz appears to be saying that the amendment should contain some kind of non-culpability clause, so that Congress can write any law resulting from a Life Amendment in a manner that allows women to have abortions in this country with no worries about the law.
In fact, since Cruz thinks only doctors should be punished, if a nurse or other type of provider performs the abortion, then the odd situation of a Life Amendment with abortions still being performed will be the result. The bottom line is that Ted Cruz has no problem with women having abortions.
One has to wonder sometimes about lawyers.
Yep. Now Trump is saying what Cruz is saying here -- that the punishment should focus on those performing the abortion. However all of this is a hypothetical red herring designed to put Republicans on the defensive. It's a political ploy.
Speak for yourself when you say women should not be punished at all for abortions..
You are absolutely correct. This is the question that needs to be answered; however, there are many answers. The only unacceptable answer is no consequence.
I disagree:”No one believes that women should be thrown in jail for abortions. If abortions are not legal we need to go after the ones who do the abortions!”
The woman is killing the baby. She goes to a murdering Doctor for the deed. We have severely enforced rape laws. If She opens her legs in a non rape situation this is how God designed procreation. When sperm meets egg in a consensual sexual act, life is created. Let me ask you this. Can the Father now kill the unborn baby? The answer is NO!! Why, then, the mother? I firmly disagree with your suggestion that she has no culpability for the murder of a human. She simply bought an executioner. i.e. THE DOCTOR.
You break the law, you have consequences, the severity of the consequences is debatable. You campaign on ending abortions, not on the consequences.
Exactly, the woman seeking the abortion still faces consequences but the severity of the consequences should be decided by the states.
If abortions are illegal, abortion clinics will be closed, which mean that people will only be getting abortions in illegal back alley abortion clinics. The number of abortions will drop significantly, as the availability to get one will drop. The jails won’t fill as quickly as you think as women will get deals to turn evidence on the backyard clinics and receive lighter sentence, which further reduces the amount available abortion clinics and thus abortions. This isn’t a hard concept to follow.
I really don’t care about being flamed. And I personally don’t care if you think it is a doozy of a stupid remark.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the comment. The whole pretense of the “argument” (the original post) was that in essence, Mr. Cruz supported abortion due to his comment that a woman who had an abortion should not be punished.
It was a “hit job” on Mr. Cruz.
It was not an argument pro or con about abortion or the implications of what should happen to a woman who has an abortion. If it was I would agree with you.
I was simply pointing out that both candidates held the same position as the poster in post 11.
It is clear that those who do the act need to be punished. When abortionists are prosecuted most abortions will dry up. The abortionists are the murderers and should be prosecuted as such!
Actually this was a terrible thread. Had the original poster made an argument regarding abortion and what should be the consequences to woman who have abortions it would be a lively and informative thread.
However, the poster used abortion as an opportunity to bash Mr. Cruz even going so far to say the Mr. Cruz must support abortion.
Unfortunately for the poster Mr. Trump changed his mind (again) and left the poster hanging out to dry.
As I said earlier this is silly season though and we will have to slog through a lot more of these on both sides.
Here it is..the abortion question. You would think that every Republican running would have this issue settled in what they believe. The Democrats have a simple answer; abortion on demand 7/24, no restrictions.
This should be an opportunity for a candidate to stand out.
The issue should be one of Pro-Life/Adoption/Nationalism
Maybe a candidate could use these 3 basic beliefs to form a position that a large majority of Americans can get behind and feel good about it.
Pro-Life ... with exceptions for rape/incest/health
Adoption ... make this a national effort, of no less importance than the war on crime. Push for a law that restricts citizen of the US from adopting overseas.
Nationalism .. educating the US public of the dangers of lower rates of birth. One only need to look at Europe. Their birth rates have been declining for 50 years. The result is the need to import young foreigners, with all the dangers of non-assimilation and terrorism, to meet the demands of government and business.
Give Americans the vehicles, adoption and nationalism, to reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong.
I always wonder about lawyers.
I disagree to an extent that this article was pointless. First Trump shouldn’t have back pedaled. His initial statement (summary/paraphrase) “illegal actions have to have consequences” is spot on correct. Trump retracted the statement when the “pro-life” movement got all up in arms about it, which blows my mind.
Trump’s statement did one thing, it showed the true colors of a lot of people. Stating that women who get abortions should not face any consequences for their participation is the ultimate conundrum of the pro-life movement. How do you stop abortions when you don’t want consequences for those wanting one?
I’ve seen several try to compare how to stop abortions to the supply and demand equation, but they always miss the key point. The basic premise of it is there is a demand for abortion, abortionists supply that demand. If you kill the supply, there will be no abortions. The problem is that the demand for abortions is unaffected, and where there is a demand a supply will sprout, thus comes black market abortion clinics. If there is no consequence for women getting abortions they aren’t going give up the BMAC. No incentive, thus abortions continue and the abortion ban law is meaningless.
To properly stop abortion, abortion needs to be declared illegal and all parties involved should face consequences, with mitigating circumstances such as coerced or forced abortions having some exception. The severity of the consequences are debatable and could be set by the states. By seeking consequences for all parties involved with exceptions noted, you target both the supply and the demand. This would close all abortion clinics, thus reducing abortions. Those that still seek abortions would go to the BMACs and when caught would make a deal for a lesser consequence to give up the BMACs, thus shutting them down and again even less abortions.
If people truly believe that abortion is murder, then it is inconceivable that they would give a pass to the woman who hired a hit man to murder her child.
Anyone who professes to believe that abortion is murder but that the woman who hired the abortionist should not be punished would have to be considered a hypocrite.
Exactly. The sad thing is that there are a lot of “pro-life” FReepers that disagree.
I am truly sorry for your losses, and the pain that you had to bear.
I wish you peace and will keep you in prayer.
bkmk
So, because both candidates say the same thing means that “no consequence abortion” is not a fake pro-life position?
The hope of the pro-life position long has been a life amendment. How would you write it? “All life is protected except when taken by the mother before birth, provided no doctor is involved.” Is that what they’ve been dreaming of?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.