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?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Personhood Constitutional Admendment mean many more Americans

A constitutional amendment on person hood means anyone conceived in America is a citizen. Anyone in the world near a post office and dry ice can ship and egg and a sperm to a US laboratory and have a US citizen shipped back home.

In Philly PA RichardKanePA

Great Divide

Well put, very thought provoking. Hopefully the RNC is monitoring this like they did during primaries and can re-craft it as their own.

I wish...

I wish the next candidate would just refuse to answer the question. Everytime its brought up they would say..."we will deal with that after we save our country from economic collapse." "We will deal with that once the troops are home."

Really, what else matters. All this talk about all these issues. Nothing ever gets done. Issues get watered down by the sheer number of issues. We need to focus.

Are you familiar with Ron Paul's reply?

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

Thanks for weighing in here. Appreciate your time in doing so.


I will say the libs better hope this becomes a state issue.
because if most republicans have their way they seek to over turn RvW and replace it with a blanket NO ABORTION law.
Paul simply seeks to remove it from federal law and negate RvW.
He does not seek to outlaw at the federal level and calls it unconstituional.


Even though dr paul is a strict and a staunch pro-lifer, i find it very telling of his character, that a Paul justice department would go after ANY state that outlawed abortion and THEN stopped a woman from crossing state lines to have the procedure done in a state where it is legal. He has said this.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Which Paul?

Do you have a quote? Because if you are talking about Ron Paul, I am understanding that the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron Paul sponsored in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 defined a person at conception and then the 14th Amendment of the Constitution declares that the states must protect persons and treat all persons (the unborn equally as the born) under the state laws.

It took me a while to unravel all of that because I was trying to understand the difference between Rand’s legislation and Ron’s legislation. Have you looked into the exact wording of Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act in conjunction with the 14th Amendment? If I am wrong about my understanding I would really like to know. Thanks!

Here are some texts:
US Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend... :
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
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.

Ron Paul's 2011 Sanctity of Life Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096/text :
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.



I havent read that bill he has introduced so many times.
Im going by what he has said in person.
he wants to remove this issue from federal hands and get it off the fed stage because it allows division among the people and politicians incite violence and use it to cause issues between parties.

He knows his bill will never pass I guess, but I think he hopes it will because he wants the fed to protect life- all life.
but he knows a constitutional ammendment is never going to happen even though he would like it to.
so in light of that, he said it would be easier if he, as president negates RvW and puts it back to the states..
one is reality and the other is a wish.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

i think his position will be

i think his position will be to explain the racist newsletter that he didn't write.



yea right!
he delivered over a thousand minority babies in our district and many of THEM FOR FREE because he wouldn't accept medicare or medicade.
He used to tell the pregnant minoritY women that wanted to pay him for delivery with medicare that "medicare was other peoples money stolen from them by gvt" and he refused to accept it...
so what did he do?
He serviced them for 9 months and delivered them for FREE and even included follow up visits...



"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

i should have written

i should have written "(sarcasm)" after that comment. geez guys, did i touch a nerve?


was there something more deep

was there something more deep seeded than i realized? my own point was that the next liberty candidate will have to answer to all those racist newsletters he keeps on writing.



"he keeps on writing"?????

you are retarded, go home.

I explained he has delivered over 1000 minority babies, many of them FOR FREE- Moron, what other explanation do you need?
should he divorce carol and marry maxine waters?
would that do it for you?
or is DELIVERING hundreds of minorities in to the world "FOR FREE" good enough for you???

do you even read what you write?
yes you touched a nerve bringing that garbage to a page.
get a life.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016


I take Ron Pauls position.
"If gvt wont protect innocent, defenseless life, then who will?"

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Strictly enforce US Constitution's Abortion Clause

There is none?
Then it matters not what position a Presidential candidate takes on the issue. It is not a Federal issue, no more so than smoking dope or kiting checks.

On the other hand, if the issue (whether you are anti-abortion or anti-conscription) exercises you that much, then grill your STATE and LOCAL level candidates.

What part of "NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE" is unclear?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

jrd3820's picture

I want to vote up a million times


“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss


Murder is an issue that the states should deal with through their plenary police powers.

The Definition of a Person under the 14th Amendment is unclear.

When the definition of a person is clear then the states will have the right to exercise the right to protect the citizens thereof.

AMENDMENT XIV (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend... )
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
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.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Action by the President
After the conference report has been approved by both the House and Senate, the final bill is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it and it becomes law. If the President does not action for ten days while Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law. If the President opposes the bill he can veto it; or, if he takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a "pocket veto" and the legislation dies. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_make_a_bill_into_law )

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."


IMO, it matters.


Not a big sovereign citizen guy but...

This book, and "chapter" especially makes one raise their eyebrows about the true intent.

Keep in mind the amendment was created during the most tyrannical times in US history under Lincoln. This also was created to put citizens it is thought under the jurisdiction of D.C. (United States).

Either way, thoughts...

What are you referring to when you say

"This book, and "chapter" ?

Yes, I recognize that the 14th amendment as doing this to us:

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

ID Josf has alot to say about Section 4 as in "SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED."

I suppose that is why in Ron's Sanctity of Life Act he specifically says that the states will have the right to protect the unborn.

Patric Henry had something to say about the citizens and the Fed:

"The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England�a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.

Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?

The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans?

I wonder why I never read those words in history class?


Ok, so I forgot to put in the link...


The chapter on the IRS is interesting. I'm not sure about the whole strawman idea, but, some points here definitely do make one think...

Thanks for the link

I thought I was just supposed to "get" your comment and I was just a little off in understanding. I am glad there was a link to be included. Thanks for taking the time to send it.

Did you read the link?

I'm interested in what other people think of the United States federal gov't creating it's own citizens (another class of citizen), outside of those already residing in the states.

This class of citizen is no longer sovereign, with inalienable rights, they are "granted" benefits and privileges from the federal gov't, and now under it's jurisdiction. It's alleged we are all now this class of citizen. Either way, thoughts? It's believable because the line of thinking is directly in line to what Lincoln wanted.

I really don't understand all

I really don't understand all the Sovereign Citizen stuff, but I did read the link. I don't know about the ALL CAPs thing. I had seen something on it before but really don't know. I've seen the info on the fact that we have been in a state of emergency as well. Have you ever read Patrick Henry on the Constitution. It seems that he didn't like it from the get go: http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

Also Lysander Spooner has some things to say about it being a Constitution of No Authority: http://jim.com/treason.htm .

I see Josf has also replied to you. He is of the opinion that it was a Power Grab from the beginning as well. I tend to agree, though not into all the sovereign citizen stuff. Seems to me the people making the rules have made the rules to rule and there is not much to be done about it IMO.

Afterall, it is nothing for them to lie, steal, and cheat a man out of the presidency in broad daylight.


Thank you for reminding me.

Thank you for reminding me. I am going to read it now.

Criminal or Victim

Master of Slave

When the criminals take over they don't say: "You are mine, so shut up and work harder, I want more things to steal."

When the criminals take over they say: "I am here to help you, here is the bill."

Or in other words:


"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."

The clock aught to be turned back to 1788 to get an idea as to why The Civil War (not at all civil) had to happen, was made to happen, and how "citizens" became "targets".

Alexander Hamilton, connected too well to the British that was supposedly defeated in The Revolution, worked for and then had ready victims in what was then a Consolidated Government after The Federalist Papers (campaign promises made to be broken) Sold We The People a False Front, where The Articles of Confederation worked well enough to aid in The Revolution, but did not work well enough for a Banking Monopoly to take hold, so Alexander Hamilton, and his ilk, got their National Debt.

National Debt was being falsely advertized as National Credit, where in reality the seeds were planted to create victims who are led to believe that the victims are borrowing money from Central Bankers when in fact the Central Bankers are borrowing money from the victims, and the victims are then given the bill for everything the Central Bankers buy, and they buy wars.

They buy wars so as to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims powerless to fight back.

If that does not make sense to you, what does that say about how well the scam works to this date?


"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

They say that you have to borrow from them, when in fact they are borrowing from you, or in their own words: The Good Faith and Credit of the American People.

They don't mean themselves. They mean the Honest Productive People who actually start out in the day with less power and through their cooperative and productive work there is enough extra power at the end of the day to constitute something worth stealing.

You produce something in this Legal Crime Jurisdiction, now knowable as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and you become a target in direct proportion to the amount of POWER you produce, as you take the power you start with in the morning and by the end of the day you have produced something worth stealing.

If you don't get that straight, all this nonsense will render you powerless - at least that is the way it looks to me.


LIberty Candidate

Liberty Candidate Abortion Issue Stand on Liberty

I am a low budget or cost-less Presidential Liberty Candidate since 1996.

Gun for hire.

So I am going to answer this question in an authoritative way.

First a reference worth the total cost of reading and understanding what was written in the reference:


Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

Chapter 6
Lessons for Today

Duel Sovereignty Essential

Page 140


"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs [footnote 12]. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right."

In context of this present Abortion Issue there are two obvious divisions being entertained as such:

Use government POWER to punish anyone found guilty of murder (including those who fund it).

Do not use government POWER to punish anyone found guilty of murder (including those who fund it).

You want me, as a candidate for Federal Office, to do exactly what with your POWER that you send to me?

My answer is that a Federal Office holder has no business trying murder cases.

The Federal Office of President of the United States has one job and if the President can't accomplish that job, then what makes you, or anyone else, think that the President is fit for trying a murder case anywhere from one end of the country to the other?

Trial by Jury worked when it worked as it was designed to work, so that is where murder cases can be tried, if someone, somewhere, is inclined to accuse someone of murder, discover the facts, and then 12 randomly selected people, a Mob if you will, have the Legal Power to PUNISH or not PUNISH the accused.

What happens if the jurors demand the information that uncovers who paid for that murder, that specific murder that the accused is being accused of murdering?

Look in the mirror?

The one job that the President of the United States has is defense of Liberty. Stealing from well brain washed victims, to then pay for baby murder, if that is what YOUR President is doing, is not on the list of duties TO ME.

To me, since the question goes out to "the next Liberty Presidential Candidate", the abortion issue is a parents issue, and if there are no parents, only murderers, then babies will be murdered, but that is a criminal case, fit for Trial by Jury (based upon sortition), if the TOP DOWN CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT is turned right side up.

In the reference offered to the potential voters, and I don't mean to point to each person who "votes" in the current crime of fraud and extortion known as "Presidential Election Cycles", I mean Productive People, those are the true voters that count, they vote with their "pocket books", their productive capacity, and they will always get what they pay for, misdirected toward paying for baby murder for fun and profit, as may be the case, in this Crime made Legal TOP DOWN, so...long winded as I may be, the reference offered offers the tried and true idea of COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT MADE LEGAL.

If you do not understand that, then you are ripe for exploitation, and you may actually be guilty of accessory to murder in many more cases than just, or that is the wrong word, so in many more cases that "ONLY" baby murder, and JUST NOW you are waking up to that fact.

So...don't vote for me in the crime called The Presidential Election Cycle, next time, because that is a waste of your time, unless We The People can stop using the Fraud money, by next July, please, and start using accurate money instead, by next July, there will be more Baby Murder for Fun and Profit, and you get handed the bill; BECAUSE you are connected to very evil people through that Legal Money Fraud.

End the FED (do it competitively IN LIBERTY)
End the IRS (doe it competitively IN LIBERTY)
Bring the Troops Home (if you don't do the 2 above then the troops will be coming home to collect on all that "National" debt, so the list here is in the right order)

Baby Murder for Fun and Profit is a crime, a very serious crime, so find those who are guilty of financing it, and stop giving them the power to murder babies, or, in other words, before you expect someone else to defend Liberty, look in the mirror.


Denise B's picture

Well said Josf

as usual and I will put this book on my reading list. I do agree that the abortion issue is an issue which should be handled on the state level; however, I also support Ron Paul's initiative to define life as occuring at conception, which if passed, solves the problem once and for all. The states could then proceed to prosecute violators of it as they see fit, just as they do with murder.

Keep us informed of your presidential run...do you have a website set up?


This was 2007


This was 2011

This was 1996


I have tried President of the Internet.

I've tried this Petition:


I've tried The Liberty Day Challenge 2012:


The Liberty Day Challenge 2013 A


The Liberty Day Challenge 2013 B


I tried this:


I kept track if that here:


This last Presidential Election Psycho I tried calling the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and others, saying: "Hey, this is what I know, and I'm willing to go, and show, a competitive example of what it means to be a competitive governing employee, at the highest level in this land."

Almost everyone knows that the best liars win, so I'm not even in the same game.

I went to jury duty, just a few months ago, the Judge almost allowed me into the case, because I spoke the truth, and I dropped the name Lysander Spooner and his Essay Trial by Jury, during Jury Selection Interrogation, but both lawyers rejected the introduction of factual evidence?

The name of the game is Might makes Right, and until enough people wise up, constituting a POWER greater than mighty lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent, including babies unborn, babies born, and babies going to church, then the Lie will reign supreme in this country.

After this:


I had already been well woke up, I had already stumbled upon Ron Paul as a fellow "conspiracy theorist", and at that point I started to ask questions about China.

You know the Giant Sucking Sound.

Note Bill "it depends upon what is IS" Clinton then "running for" President of Might makes Right.

Then this happened:


I was working heavy in those days, many hours, hard labor too, barely making ends meet, paying heavy taxes - sign at the bottom.

That was it for me. There were VCR tapes, I still have my copies, produced by Linda Thomson at the time.


There was a call to all brave men at that time to get our guns and march on Washington to try the accused for their crimes, since no other possible way exists to do so, according to the call, in my own words - but there was a phone number. I called it. The event never happened. My wife was extremely troubled by my behavior at the time.

So I ran for congress instead, getting on the ballot.

I ran on the "It is wrong to torture and murder babies" ticket.

I ran on the "Involuntary taxes are a false front for extortion" ticket.

These are market surveys - listed above.

The OP here, bless her heart, represents, to me, the last remaining brave hearts in America and when this country is down to the point where The Girl Scouts are our last hope, then there may be no hope left, but at least we have their good moral standing, and courage, instead of NONE.

I don't mean to discredit anyone, ever, but if there is credit due, in the land of the brave, and the home of the free, then it is getting woefully past time for those in that group to stand the hell up.


Denise B's picture

Well Joe

you certainly have done and continue to do your part, what else can one do? That certainly is the question of the day: Where have all the men gone? I wish I knew....But of course that has been done by design - the sissification of men was planned and required after all and the designers have done their job well. Not to say that there are not still some good men left out there fighting the fight, I am talking to one right now, but they most assuredly are in the vast minority.

As always, my hope lies in God and you never know who He will rise up at the right moment to do what needs to be done. Or maybe He has had enough and it is time to just let it burn. Either way, my hope and salvation rests with Him and the comforting knowledge that He has been and always will be in control.

I am so sorry to hear about your mom. My thoughts and prayers are with your family.


I find much hope in words found here, and I appreciate the effort.