Cruz Slams Trump: We Shouldn't Be 'Punishing Women' For Abortion

[hells_unicorn]

On topic:

I've been wary of Ted Cruz promoting himself as the "Christian" candidate for a long-time, and this is a good example of his greater affinity with American heathenism than Christian orthodoxy. Rather than consulting scripture or the history of the church, he's going on a cynical ploy to create a wedge between so-called "moderate Republican women" and Trump's evangelical support, which has been growing. Cruz's idiotic claims of being called by God are borderline blasphemous and anyone watching his various media stunts and spectacles over the past several months should take such claims with a massive grain of salt.

To be fair, Trump is most likely pandering to his growing base of support among American Christians, many of whom are not fully schooled in proper biblical interpretation but have at least stumbled into a proper view of this issue. Infanticide while in utero is as much an assault on the image of God as sneaking into a man's house and slashing his throat while he sleeps, in fact, John Calvin viewed it as being worse than that when writing his commentary on Exodus 21.

 

[Gh34]

Wrong! Consult Exodus 21:22.



The Babylonian Talmud makes some statements regarding pedophilia being permissible, not a good source also given that it was based on the code of law by which Jesus was condemning the Jewish establishment of the time.



I strongly suggest consulting other sources than the modern liberal rot you've been consuming if you wish to make accurate statements on Christian history, you can start with the following link which lists the Didache, early councils, and early fathers of the church beginning in the mid 2nd century.

Oh, and in case you're unclear on this being a consistent viewpoint prior to the 19th century, feel free to consider some quotes from key Protestant Reformers below:

John Calvin
Martin Luther
Zwingli also spoke out against the practice, but I can't locate any isolated quotes from his works posted anywhere for immediate consumption.

And that passage explicitly ranks it as a lower sin, not on equal with a full-person. You're cherrypicking particular examples, but that wasn't the consensus of the era, the consensus was that there was a huge consideration regarding ensoulment and the amount of time necessary before quickening. They were following the aristotelian concept of when life began, not conception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion

Neither Calvin nor Luther explicitly talked about abortion, and again it also depends on the context, if it occurred before ensoulment then it was another story. Having it after quickening is a late-term abortion situation which is a separate concept.

 

[Gh34]

On topic:

I've been wary of Ted Cruz promoting himself as the "Christian" candidate for a long-time, and this is a good example of his greater affinity with American heathenism than Christian orthodoxy. Rather than consulting scripture or the history of the church, he's going on a cynical ploy to create a wedge between so-called "moderate Republican women" and Trump's evangelical support, which has been growing. Cruz's idiotic claims of being called by God are borderline blasphemous and anyone watching his various media stunts and spectacles over the past several months should take such claims with a massive grain of salt.

To be fair, Trump is most likely pandering to his growing base of support among American Christians, many of whom are not fully schooled in proper biblical interpretation but have at least stumbled into a proper view of this issue. Infanticide while in utero is as much an assault on the image of God as sneaking into a man's house and slashing his throat while he sleeps, in fact, John Calvin viewed it as being worse than that when writing his commentary on Exodus 21.

The history of abortion is a separate idea. The point is that Cruz is marketing himself as the 'pro-life' 'life begins at conception, no exceptions for rape or incest 'abortion is murder' candidate, while not actually having any strong convictions to enforce his morals. If he truly believed his ideas on the subject and his candidacy in general were derived from God, then he would demand punishment for such immoral atrocities. Indeed, it can be considered blasphemy, using God's name in vain.

 

[jmdrake]

Hypocrisy of the (so-called) pro-Life* movement. Stop hiding behind mothers' skirts....if you really believe it's murder, you have to execute the women who seek abortions.

*we already knew they were hypocrites...they thirst for the blood of war too much to really be pro-Life.

Abortion is medical malpractice. Who do you punish for medical malpractice? And yes, it can be malpractice even if the patient asks for for the procedure.

/thread

 

[jmdrake]

By the way, Ron Paul has exactly the same position as Ted Cruz on this issue.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007

Really, I'm surprised at people who have been in this movement a long time that either don't know or don't care about Ron Paul's position on things. You don't have to agree with them. But if you slam them as "hypocritical" then what the hell are you doing here?

 

[helenpaul]

THis is the same Cruz whose associates with religious zealots who want to exterminate gays? The media totally ignores cruz's bigotry. Cruz would make a great Ayatollah, but not a president.

 

[jmdrake]

THis is the same Cruz whose associates with religious zealots who want to exterminate gays? The media totally ignores cruz's bigotry. Cruz would make a great Ayatollah, but not a president.

Actually that was a lie. The pastor in question made the explicit point that even though the Bible called for the death penalty for homosexuals, he does not. He also put homosexuality in the same category as fornication or divorce without proper grounds and remarriage. Please see this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...gay-pastor-did-NOT-call-for-execution-of-gays

 

[cajuncocoa]

Abortion is medical malpractice. Who do you punish for medical malpractice? And yes, it can be malpractice even if the patient asks for for the procedure.

/thread

But that's your opinion. You can make your case, but it doesn't close the argument because too many people consider abortion to be murder, too many consider it to be no big deal.

 

[jmdrake]

But that's your opinion. You can make your case, but it doesn't close the argument because too many people consider abortion to be murder, too many consider it to be no big deal.

It's actually Ron Paul's opinion. I got it from him.

And your "some people think abortion is murder therefore my argument stands" position is collectivist and illogical. For example, most of us oppose foreign aid to all countries. Certainly people who hate Jews don't like aid going to Israel. Is it fair to use that as an a counter argument to our saying there should be no aid to Israel? Nope.

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's actually Ron Paul's opinion. I got it from him.

That's fine. I respect Dr. Paul, you know that. But his opinion isn't going to close the argument on this either. (It won't be settled on RPF....if it could be, Dr. Paul's opinion would be good enough for me.)

 

[Gh34]

By the way, Ron Paul has exactly the same position as Ted Cruz on this issue.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007

Really, I'm surprised at people who have been in this movement a long time that either don't know or don't care about Ron Paul's position on things. You don't have to agree with them. But if you slam them as "hypocritical" then what the hell are you doing here?

No kidding, so do Romney and the others, the difference is that Romney and the others do not claim to be 'anointed by Jesus' and say that they are the religious candidate. They run as secular candidates, who support exceptions for rape and incest. Not 'pro life because abortion is murder hail mary' ted cruz.

Actually that was a lie. The pastor in question made the explicit point that even though the Bible called for the death penalty for homosexuals, he does not. He also put homosexuality in the same category as fornication or divorce without proper grounds and remarriage. Please see this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...gay-pastor-did-NOT-call-for-execution-of-gays

He said he doesn't support it 'YET', that means 'until they repent', which could be never for many of them, if not most of them, hence it is calling for execution.

 

[jmdrake]

No kidding, so do Romney and the others, the difference is that Romney and the others do not claim to be 'anointed by Jesus' and say that they are the religious candidate. They run as secular candidates, who support exceptions for rape and incest. Not 'pro life because abortion is murder hail mary' ted cruz.

Ron Paul ran as an openly Christian candidate. No appreciable difference between Ron and Cruz on this.

He said he doesn't support it 'YET', that means 'until they repent', which could be never for many of them, if not most of them, hence it is calling for execution.

False choice fallacy. The time to repent is until Jesus comes again. At that point God does whatever execution is necessary. Note that this pastor said that divorce without proper cause and and remarriage is not much different than homosexuality. Yet you don't see the media saying he called for the execution of people on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. That's because most people would immediately see through that.

 

[Gh34]

Ron Paul ran as an openly Christian candidate. No appreciable difference between Ron and Cruz on this.



False choice fallacy. The time to repent is until Jesus comes again. At that point God does whatever execution is necessary. Note that this pastor said that divorce without proper cause and and remarriage is not much different than homosexuality. Yet you don't see the media saying he called for the execution of people on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. That's because most people would immediately see through that.

All candidates have run as 'openly Christian candidates'. Cruz belongs in the class of Huckabee/Santorum in terms of pandering to the religious above all else, and questioning the 'moral values' of the other candidates, while the other openly Christian candidates run as secularists and focus on policy issues not 'who is more moral and holier'.

Wrong, you're making that up by adding the qualifer 'until Jesus comes again'. It's an open-ended statement, it could be any time for any reason. The bible explicitly calls for the death penalty regarding gays, different penalties for the other crimes, big differences.

 

[erowe1]

No, there is no mention of abortion in the bible period. The Talmud which was written in the early hundreds A.D. first makes some statements regarding abortion, but even early rabbinic judaism wasn't clearly against it.

And if you want to talk about Christianity, it wasn't disavowed unless it was after quickening (a number of days - months following conception), before that, it wasn't considered to have fulfilled the conditions of ensoulment.

I didn't mention the Bible. I said early Christian and Jewish writings, including ones that are earlier than the very earliest rabbinic writings.

Just off the top of my head, the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, Josephus, and Philo, all attest that abortion was universally prohibited among Jews and Christians. These are all from the first or early second centuries AD. And in none of these cases is quickening any part of the issue.

 

[erowe1]

He said he doesn't support it 'YET', that means 'until they repent', which could be never for many of them, if not most of them, hence it is calling for execution.

Please find a quote of him calling for execution of anyone at an event where Cruz was present.

 

[erowe1]

And that passage explicitly ranks it as a lower sin, not on equal with a full-person.

No it doesn't. It requires that the person who causes the baby's death be executed. It even uses the phrase, "life for life."

 

[erowe1]

This is supposedly the 'pro-life' jesus candidate who supposedly wants abortion banned in all instances, even for rape and incest.

Source?

 

[Jamesiv1]

[MENTION=2]Bryan[/MENTION]

This thread has turned into a religious debate.

Could you please split or move to Religion forum?

 

[RonPaulMall]

On topic:

To be fair, Trump is most likely pandering to his growing base of support among American Christians, many of whom are not fully schooled in proper biblical interpretation but have at least stumbled into a proper view of this issue. Infanticide while in utero is as much an assault on the image of God as sneaking into a man's house and slashing his throat while he sleeps, in fact, John Calvin viewed it as being worse than that when writing his commentary on Exodus 21.

I don't think Trump's specific comments were any attempt at pandering per se. Trump made the decision from the get go that he had to pretend to be pro-life to win the nomination even though it is quite obvious he doesn't care about the issue in the slightest. Not caring about the issue, when asked about the punishment question he answered in the way he assumed any nominally pro-life person would answer. He wasn't aware of the hypocritical posturing about punishment currently en vogue with so called pro-life leaders.

So in a general sense Trump is pandering with his whole pretense of being anti-abortion, but his comments weren't some calculated attempt to prove just how anti-abortion he really is. He just assumed that was the correct answer because it is the only answer that makes any sense. Once he found out about the hypocritical double standard, he issued a press release "correcting" his earlier statement.

 

[Gh34]

I didn't mention the Bible. I said early Christian and Jewish writings, including ones that are earlier than the very earliest rabbinic writings.

Just off the top of my head, the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, Josephus, and Philo, all attest that abortion was universally prohibited among Jews and Christians. These are all from the first or early second centuries AD. And in none of these cases is quickening any part of the issue.

Again, there's a difference between a condemnation and a characterization of abortion as being the same or less than infanticide. Universally, in consensus, it wasn't seen as the same as infanticide, and was looked upon as a lesser issue. A class 3 misdemeanor is not a class 1 felony.