Not at all. I personally would never choose to have an abortion, but as a man I am never put into a position to make that decision. It is not my place to tell a woman what her choice should be. There are too many factors that must be considered on a personal level (i.e., rape, incest, threat to mother's life, economic resources, etc.) I favor a woman's right to make that decision without government interference.
Do you think a woman has the right to seek out and murder her rapist? If anyone deserves to die it's the rapist, right? But I assume you think the courts should handle that kind of thing and that vigilante justice is illegitimate? Why, then, is it okay to commit a horrible atrocity just because a different horrible atrocity happened before that one? Being a rape victim or being poor are not legitimate defenses to murder, especially the murder of an innocent third party.
I don't know if you have children or not, but there's nothing more disgusting to me than someone who can feel the love a parent has for their child and not be absolutely sickened by abortion.
And where are the Republicans when the woman chooses to have the baby? They are opposing any kind of social support that would make it possible for that baby to grow up healthy, well-educated, and able to take advantage of the same opportunities as other citizens.
Have you honestly never heard of a crisis pregnancy center? They're all over the place, get very little (if any) government funding, and are run almost exclusively by Christian conservatives.
I also favor social security, medicare, universal education, universal access to healthcare, and the rest of the social safety network, all programs that Cruz proposes to cut or eliminate.
What about the government gives you any confidence that it can administer these programs effectively, efficiently, or honestly? Every single one of them would be better if people made decisions for themselves as opposed to politicians making decisions for everybody. Government-run anything is a race to mediocrity.
And talk about big government, I know at least one prominent Republican governor that was pretty happy to see the federal government running to his aid after Hurricane Sandy.
Nobody anywhere is suggesting that disaster relieve is an illegitimate function of government.
And your suggestion that the right to marry whom you choose is a state issue is only an attempt to deny a constitutionally guaranteed right (according the the SCOTUS) to gay citizens. In other words, you want to stack the Supreme Court so you can get decisions that you favor. And when that doesn't work out you will try to by-pass the SCOTUS decision by opting for a different law for each state of the union. Whatever happened to the Republicans who supported the law of the land? They've been replaced by Republicans who only plan to obey the law if it agrees with their personal interpretation.
Gay marriage is a behavior, not a trait. Being black, equal protection applies. Being female, equal protection applies. Marrying a man? Equal protection does not apply.
