For the same reason governments moralize about gun ownership, theft, murder and numerous other issues

I wasn't asking about what governments might or might not moralize on, I was asking what your position is and whether it's consistent. So I'll ask you again, surely if you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder regardless of how the conception came about? And if you don't believe life begins at conception, what is your issue with a woman choosing what to do with her own body?

Several candidates from your party have stated that they would not grant an exception (to abortion restrictions) even in the case of rape. Therefore, it's relevant to the argument about the suitability of said candidates (Cruz being the most relevant at the moment).

Forgive me if I misunderstand but are you suggesting that the morning after pill or use of a condom is in any way equivalent to a major medical procedure? That taking a pill BEFORE the sperm has even hit the egg or using a condom to prevent the sperm getting in, is abortion?

Rape might have been peripheral to our exchange but not to the issue as a whole. I brought it up because:

It is still relevant to the abortion discussion as a whole. One which shouldn't even be a discussion at all. Abortion is not murder. If you take a 12 week fetus out of the uterus it will not survive, it is not viable as 'life'. Abortion is no more murder than birth control is.

Conservatives make me laugh. Government needs to stay out of their healthcare, but it should crawl right into that woman's uterus and set up camp. Or life begins at conception, life is sacred and to end it is murder, but yeah, the death penalty gives me a nice warm freedom boner.

To address your example of 'a 20 something women who forgot to take her pill or make her lover wear a condom', what a ridiculous statement. Unless you are trying to somehow include the morning after pill in this as well, which is taken within 24 hours of the suspected conception when any embryo that may exist is no more complex a cell than a bacteria. You have no argument, you might as well face it. Life does not begin at conception, it begins at birth.

Canada gets this one right. Abortion restrictions violate a pregnant woman's civil rights, so there are no restrictions.

Should we also have a criminal investigation into every time a woman has a miscarriage?

This explains the need for small government. If it's too large, then it won't fit inside of all of the private places where it needs to go.

So what you're saying is that government should be the size of a dildo. Unfortunately Ted Cruz wants them banned.

I still can't figure out why they haven't deported him to his homeland.

They don't want him back.

As a serious aside, I believe a PA court did just rule that he is a natural born US citizen.

You can blame judicial activism for that sort of ruling. Funny how this works.

It should be pretty obvious that Cruz is not a natural-born citizen as the founders would have understood the term. I'm all in favor of amending the constitution so that this now-archaic prohibition no longer applies, but historical revisionism is not an acceptable substitute for Article 5.

In what way is he not a natural born citizen?

The idea is derived from common law. The English concept of citizenship was derived from feudalism -- one was loyal to the land of his lord -- which evolved into loyalty to the Crown.

Under common law, citizenship was a function of birthplace; with a few exceptions, such as the children of the monarch and ambassadors serving abroad, citizenship for the foreign born came from acts of Parliament, not from the common law.

The US adopted this concept (although it was initially limited to whites) -- if you were born here, then you were a citizen. Congress was given the authority to naturalize those who weren't born here, but it had no authority to deny citizenship to those who were born here (with a few exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats.)

Ted Cruz is a citizen because of an act of Congress. If there had been no statute, Cruz would not have been a citizen at birth. This is quite different from someone who was born on US soil for whom citizenship is a birthright.

If all of the immigration statutes were repealed today, a baby born tomorrow in California or Kansas would undoubtedly be a US citizen -- between the common law and the 14th amendment, this would be clear. A kid born in Calgary would not be because of the lack of a law to give him citizenship.

A US citizen is either natural-born or naturalized, and it is the legal origins of his citizenship that make the difference. If you need a statute to grant you citizenship, then you aren't natural-born. One could argue that Congress could pass a law that redefines natural born as it did for a few years during the 1790s, although a strict originalist would argue that this would violate Article 5.

NJ has also just ruled in Cruz' favor. It's a very well written piece, you should read it as it covers many of the points you just raised.

http://media.philly.com/documents/Ju...+NJ+ballot.pdf

The following article is referenced:

The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born' by Michael D. Ramsey :: SSRN

Here is the PA decision:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...Cruzruling.pdf