8 votes

Abortion: The Great Divide - What should be the position of the next Liberty Presidential Candidate? Why?

...

Abortion: Is it the divide of the Liberty Movement? It certainly is the divide between life and death.

Is there a choice when the future of someone else is involved?

Will federal legislation cause federal prying into the lives of pregnant women?

Should the subject be left to the states?

Why is this issue even an issue?

Will you vote for a candidate who does not line up with your view?

Does abortion fall hand-in-hand with Euthanasia?

What constitutes human life?

Are human life and personhood the same thing?

What will be the roll of abortion and death panels in Obamacare?

What other questions and answers are worth discussing?

What is your position and why?

Is it reasonable to discuss this topic among liberty minded people?

What are the differences between Rand Paul and Ron Paul on the life issue?

...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Easy

The President does not legislate, so the candidate should promise not to usurp any power from the legislature or the states.

Because the abortion issue is divisive in politics (not so much so in other areas), there is no way it will be resolved by politics.

Until society decides which way to go, it will remain a political football, and our best action is to refuse to play with it.

Instead, educate others.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Abortion

Is a crime against humanity imo. A woman may have an abortion if she chooses to but should be charged with this offense.

donvino

Well, if that isn't a

Well, if that isn't a collectivist opinion, I don't know what is. If there is a spectrum of collectivism, that's pretty much the furthest one can take it.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

BG!

It's not a single issue for me, it's the whole message, someone puts forth. Liberty IS life, you cannot have one without the other, in my opinion. I would have voted for Gary if he wasn't a douche on so many other things.

I still would have voted for Dr.Paul if he had been "pro-choice" too.

I DO NOT ever want to see a Fed weigh in on anything it's not supposed to so I'd vote for person either way, as long as, they were of the mind to push it back to the States.

That's where it belongs.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

In my newly awakened state

when I found Ron Paul, the first thing I looked at was his stance on Life. It was this

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

that drew me to support him. It was the litmus test for me.

IMO any candidate that does not understand that if we do not protect life we cannot protect liberty will never get my vote...I am a purist.

(And still learning what it means thanks to you and my other friends here at the DP)

How, rp4pres, can the Declaration of Independence extend to the unborn if they are murdered without consent?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

You have taught me that the DoI is not just for American Citizens, nor just for those within our borders, but for all humankind. How can one human determine that another human can be murdered without that person's consent?

As long as the unborn are deemed less than human or less than persons, they can be murdered. How does that set with Liberty? Mind you I am not arguing, I am asking, can each state determine what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is and to whom it is due? Or is that DoI an all-encompassing document meant to encompass all with the Beauty of Liberty?

Do you know about the “Dirty Compromise?”

...

Here's my worry..

That people will vote by that test only. All freedoms are important. I could have voted for Gary but ONLY because he stated the right thing Constitutionally.. That he would push it back to the States.

I don't think we're off track with one another. I could not support someone that was pro-choice that wanted to federally mandate abortion no more than I could someone that would federally mandate pro-life.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You beat me to it.

Some believe in God, some do not.

I personally believe in the sanctity of life, even prior to being born. No president good or bad will EVER change my mind on that.

Imo, this should NOT be a presidential issue. I believe that once the Constitution is opened, honored and followed, many issues will inherently work themselves out. It is up to man, woman and child to understand, live Liberty, to understand and respect others Liberty, Freedom. Some things should never be legislated, but taught by example, experience and by the grace of God [or who/whatever you hold supreme].

There are many who choose presidents soley based upon skin color, or gay/marriage rights, or abortion alone. This nation [Republic], defending our Constitution, promoting sound money, MUST be the forefront, for THAT is the presidents job.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Wise words.

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

What I am not understanding

What I am not understanding in the discussion of states rights is whether states can deny or infringe upon natural rights.

No they should not be able to.

Dr.Paul never wanted to mandate. What he wants is to change peoples minds on an issue by discussion and reasoning.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

But Ron Paul

sponsored Sanctity of Life Acts in 2005, 2007, 2009 & 2011. That legislation if approved would have 1) declared life at conception, and 2) given the states the privilege (which was removed with Roe vs Wade) to Protect Life. 3) That act would have also removed the courts from the discussion.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096/text

Wouldn't that Act if passed have been a Federal Mandate of Life beginning at conception?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but

the language seems to set up exactly what he preached. Pushing it back to the states.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Back to the states

to do what?

"(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096/text

Read the whole thing and try to put the whole text in context.

It looks like he has basically taken away the possibility of the Feds in any form, changing a states decision. It has merely "given" the states the "authority" and barred anyone from intervening outside of that state.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Does it take a Federal Law

Does it take a Federal Law declaring life beginning at conception to give the states the authority to protect the unborn?

Wouldn't that type of law obligate the states to protect the unborn? i.e. can states make laws that supercede the Bill of Rights / Constitution? Or can states only make laws that are lawful under that contractual federal document, the constitution?

If life is declared at conception, would not states be obligated to provide a republican form of government to the unborn?

"Does it take a Federal Law declaring life beginning at

conception to give the states the authority to protect the unborn?"

Technically, no, it is there "right" to begin with.. They have just been silent on their duties and have allowed the Feds to grow into the monster it is today. As it is, I think Dr.Paul is working within the confines of the populace's mindset.

"Wouldn't that type of law obligate the states to protect the unborn? i.e. can states make laws that supercede the Bill of Rights / Constitution?" It doesn't look like it.. Looks like to me it's up to the individual states and their determination. It's a complicated issue, bear and I don't pretend to have all of the answers.

In my mind, all human life deserves protection.. whether born or unborn but I still would never want to force someone not to do something I think is morally wrong.

Anything other than what I've put forth as the meaning of Dr.Paul's actions concerning this ACT, I would not support. Last thing I would want is a theological slippery slope in government. Which we already have to a degree because neoCON's push a religious agenda in an attempt to legislate morality.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"because neoCON's push a

"because neoCON's push a religious agenda in an attempt to legislate morality."

I think they do this in order to get the religious vote so then they can do what they want to once in power, and do so with the support of the religious.

At least that is how I have seen me, myself, and I, "played" by the neocons before this election.

IMO, It is a neocon grand scheme to steal liberty by legislating morality with the support of the religious who do not begin to understand liberty.

You are right, it is a complicated issue. I think it is meant to be that way for political control. The issue is the carrot that continues to lure the unsuspecting religious into tyranny for the sake of morality.

It is though, an issue upon which I will not budge. I hope the next liberty candidate understands liberty as Dr. Paul did as only being safegaurded thru the protection of life.

...

Abortion is an issue that should be dealt with at the state...

level.

In addition, I would like to add that it is a misconception to think that outlawing abortion will stop its practice. If you don't believe me, just read the first paragraph of Liberty Defined. Ron Paul himself witnessed an abortion (late-term nonetheless) while it was still illegal.

The best way to stop any behavior on a large scale is through honest education.

I agree, but what is wrong

I agree, but what is wrong with declaring conception as the beginning of life at the Federal Level?

If it's not going to serve to support a federal law...

then it would seem only to serve to inflame the pro-choice crowd, imo.

IMO some already are

IMO some already are "inflamed." That being said does it matter that someone is inflamed when an innocent life is at stake?

Do we care who gets "inflamed" when we say cut out the killing of innocent lives in the middle east?

I just think it would be better to communicate...

the idea effectively without taking actions that may cause further division. If we can spread libertarian philosophy successfully, abortion will decline naturally over time, imho.

Philosophy has been deemed a waste of time by society while, in reality, philosophy is more important than most other subjects. For instance, I greatly appreciate mathematics, but it does little to prevent violence.

IMO, humbly,

is that perhaps philosophy is what enabled the "justices" to rationalize that "they" could not determine "when" life begins, thus leading to the legal death of over 50 millions US babies.

Hmmm...death...the opposite of life. I wonder...if one kills something, doesn't that something first have to be alive?

Rationally, I wonder, how does 50 million lost lives impact the economy: that loss of labor and productivity and demand of goods that could have been supplied and required by those 50 million.

...

The position of the next (l)ibertarian candidate for POTUS...

...should be:

(1) Don't make it an issue. Talk about it only when asked.
(2) Whatever his/her personal opinion, the policy should be that the federal government has no authority in the Constitution to make law concerning abortion, and that it should be left up to the individual States. If federal laws need to be passed to expressly remove it from the jurisdiction of the federal government, then such laws should be passed.
(3) Stop talking about it now, and talk about something that matters.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Something that matters?

Might just be whether the murder of 50 Million Human Beings without trial, jury or representation might have something to do with liberty for those that make it to the outside world.

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

If I hear words different than those of the Champion of Liberty who saw this issue important enough to speak out and sponsor Sanctity of Life Acts in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, then I will know that that Liberty candidate does not understand liberty at all, nor will they receive my vote or campaigning support. As a matter of fact that candidate can expect the opposite from me.

IMO The failure to protect human life at home is why this government could care less about the pain and suffering caused by this government overseas. And why under Obamacare "death panels" will determine the future deaths of those humans not deemed worthy to give life prolonging treatment...in the name of conserving healthcare dollars for those who are worthy of life. Right now in the UK people are relegated to the Path of Death with monetary compensation for meeting those predetermined goals. These people are being starved until they die.

http://www.whatsonjinan.com/news-4432-sick-angels-death-path...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/socialized_medic...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-...

Sanctity of Life is a Liberty Issue and it will never by time to quit talking about, IMO.

The point is that if life is declared at conception then according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution the states will be obliged to treat those lives equally under the laws of the state. Ron Paul's legislation would have accomplished this. His legislations specifically says "(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096/text

14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Abortion matters...

...but abortion laws do not matter, in that they will have no appreciable impact on the number of abortions because there's simply no way to enforce a prohibition on abortion: in the same way that there's no way to enforce a prohibition on drug use. Hence, the debate over abortion is purely academic. Whereas, the debate over foreign policy, civil liberties, the economic role of government, etc: these debates are not purely academic, these have very real and serious consequences. Time, attention, and money are scarce, we need to allocate ours to the issues in something like their order of importance and urgency, and abortion is way down the list.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Where is the great divide? Certain Death Vs. Life?

Maybe this little guy should have been aborted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0&feature=player_em...

Surely you that are pro-choice can tell his mom and dad what they should have done.

Surely if you are pro-choice this little one is the perfect example for you to hold up to us and your justification for taking a life.

Tell his mom and dad that! Tell us that his 99 days ALIVE were not worth living.

This is why I get angry what I hear the callous remarks from those who refuse to defend those who are unable to speak up and defend themselves.

.

The president doesn't have the

authority to declare abortion illegal or legal.
W. Bush had a pro-life majority in his first term and did NOTHING!
I suspect the GOP needs abortion legal in order to keep the pro-life vote loyal to them.
Likewise, the Democrat party needs to keep the pro-choice vote fearful.

The President has the power to PARDON those who would intervene

The President has the power to PARDON those who would intervene to stop an abortion.

He has the power to PARDON those who might by force step in to rescue a child.

The President has the power to Pardon anyone who would defend the innocent even by force.

A President could make a declaration that he will fully Pardon and not allow the prosecution of anyone who steps up and steps in to defend the life of the unborn child.

The President could literally hand the ABORTIONIST and the clinics over to the mob if he saw fit to ever do it.

If I were President I would issue those PARDONS to the extent that a LIFE or LIVES were in immediate danger.

Same as if someone was threatening someone else with a deadly weapon. I would not allow the prosecution to proceed against those who were justifiably defending the lives of others.

They would be PARDONED upon request.

.

Stay out of it.

That is what the next one should do. Simply say it can be left up to the states on how they want to deal with it and refuse to state their position one way or the other.
Only works if the person has never been caught saying what they think though.

This issue is politically charged regardless of which side you are on.
If you say you are for abortion, you lose alot of support.
If you say you are against abortion, you lose alot of support.

There is no winning with this issue. Period.

It really should be left to the states though.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.