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.

Has the word "person" been defined anywhere?

Has the word "person" been defined anywhere?

It seems that is what Rand's legislation as well as Ron's legislation would do.

I guess maybe Roe v Wade said they couldn't define "person"; i.e. life. I guess maybe I just answered my own question? :)

Regarding their self-interest...it is in their interest to keep it undefined so they can hold the issue over voter's heads...always out of reach.

Well, according to several

Well, according to several law dictionaries online this is the general definition of "person"


person n
1 : natural person
2 : the body of a human being
: the body and clothing of a human being [had drugs on his ]
3 : one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties see also juridical person, legal person, personality
per·son·hood n


And if you click on the first definition, natural person which is hyper-linked, you get this:

natural person n
: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law compare juridical person, legal person


Which just brings the debate full circle with the argument of whether life begins at conception or birth.

Blessings )o(

Of course


since these criminals don't know what "is" is, there is absolutely no way for them to know what "life" is...

I read some scripture today about a lawyer:

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He saidunto him, What is writtenin the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do , and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Imagine that...needing a definition for neighbour.


That Is The Hard Part...

...who is to define what a person is? I am a staunch pro lifer but to convince a pro choicer is impossible. Just as each state defines there killing laws and murder laws, so I think each state should be able to enforce there abortion laws. This is how it was originally handled but the growing pro choice movement told the federal government that they wanted there rights protected because all the states had made it illegal. Then Roe vs. Wayde passed and all the states were in a sense forced to allow abortions. I'm confusing myself...it is such a complicating issue I really don't know where I stand on the legal side of it...

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



Thank you for your thoughts.

I appreciate your time and putting them down for me. I am pro-life as well.

I also know Ron Paul thought it was an important enough issue to define life at the federal level that he submitted Sanctity of Lif legislation in 2005 07, 09 &11 and also said, "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

I am still trying to understand all the legal mumbo jumbo!

We need to stop playing the social issues game

And focus on fiscal responsibility and sound money.

Government has no standing on social issues, though it acts as if it does.


Maybe they don't but they sure do spend alot of our money in

those areas...

Sound money would make this much harder to do

Congress would no longer have the ability to make unlimited promises with an unlimited currency




Need to be pro-"life" before we can be pro-life

We need to achieve life, liberty, happiness and peace for the living first.

Ask anyone who has had an abortion why they did it and you'll discover an environment of economic stress.

Free & happy people value life. Oppressed people dread it.

Morality can't be legislated. It comes from the people... free people. Abortion is the symptom, let's attack the core issues first.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

You make a good point, but

to me that is like saying...ok never mind the person next door just shot their spouse, don't call the police, after all they were under economic duress.

How is there any difference? Sure we cannot legislate morality, but there are laws in place protecting life. Why?


Calling the police did not prevent the homicide in your example. The punishment is irrelevant at that point.

Laws in place protecting life... they are the ideals we want to live by as "civilized" people and I use Civilized loosely. We are hypocritical. Waging war for example has nothing to do with preserving life, we create "rules & laws" that support the action.

Bear its my perspective that healthy communities are created by healthy people, free people, prosperous people. In this situation people make better decisions.

Laws don't create morality the people do. Laws don't stop crimes, responsible people do by not committing them in the first place.

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective. Its just not mine. I feel we have much greater things to take care of first. Note: I am not religious so maybe that has something to do with my view.


"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

I understand what you are saying, Do you think laws against

crime are a deterrent? I ask because you said: "Calling the police did not prevent the homicide in your example. The punishment is irrelevant at that point."

Perhaps not for the dead person, but for continuance of "civilization" it is still relevant?

I understand that murderers are going to murder, but would there be more murder if there were no civil consequences?

I appreciate your time to give your perspective. Thanks :)

Thanks Bear

I don't advocate lawlessness. And you are right that knowing there is a repercussion for a negative action will make many people with bad intentions think twice.

To your point, why is it that whenever there is a power outage or natural disaster that some people go on a looting spree? Because they believe there will be no consequence for their actions.

I just don't believe that a law will stop abortion from happening and it won't eliminate the reasons why people feel compelled to have an abortion. In fact, I don't believe that people do it because of desire or malice (criminal intent). I believe they do it because they are desperate and fearful (emotion, "the human condition").

Its a tough subject, no doubt.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Thank you Colorado Sean

for your teaching moments! They are much appreciated!

I don't think the law will stop all abortions but am wondering, do you think if there were life laws that it may cause people to curb or change their actions? i.e. power outage = abortion on demand?

I don't

I don't because unfortunately, I think that life has become cheap for many of the living. If we can easily cast away the life of the born it is even easier to do it to the unborn.

Good night, good convo.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo



I see abortion as a total

I see abortion as a total non-issue right now. It may be a big deal, but it has nothing to do with saving the country.

The elite would love for us to focus on abortion.

States rights.

States rights.

Ventura 2012


although ron paul and gary johnson have opposing views on this issue, both agree it should be up to the states.

I am trying to figure out how

if life legislation is passed it will at all be left up to the states. Can you take a look at the 14th Amendment:
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."

and tell me how, if legislation is passed to define life at conception all unborn life will not have to be protected by the state? I am trying to sort out how Ron's Sanctity of Life Act would even allow abortion within states with or without state funding and would not guarantee equal state protection of the law in regards to murder.


and if you don't like

your state's ruling you can work to change that by activism, and voting.

Pro Choice

I see it under the woman's choice, who is to choose her own decision regarding her own body and her child. Now that being said there should be a cut off date like before the child's brain or heart develops, I don't know what its called or if its actually like that.

it is and always has been a womans choice.

I just believe that choice has to be made before conception, not after. Once you have made the chopice to concieve it is your duty to protect that life just as a moral person protects the innocent at the risk of their own health and well being. The abortion issue is not inextricably linked to euthenasia, though the tweo are often associated. If an elderly person makes a living will it should be followed, as it is their life, and ONLY their life that is affected. personally I don't believe in giving up the fight when there is hope left as I see that as similar to a suicide, but that is between the individual and their maker whoever (if anyone) they think that may be since it only affects the individual. I find it Impossible to stand for individual liberty without being able to take a stand for the most helpless amongst us. Also, the majority of voters are pro-life, so it is pretty well a necessary political position (especially in the Republican primary) among liberty minded folks.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

This is all you have to know to know it is wrong.


This is one issue where there

This is one issue where there is just no right answer. I'm very anti-abortion. I believe a human has been created upon conception, and that there is an individual, and no one has any right to rule over that individual.


I've seen the other side of the coin as well. And it's a logical, legitimate, argument.

Which means, this is a perfect issue that should be left up to the states. A state should be allowed to make it illegal. A state should be allowed to make it legal.

Vots, do you realize you just

Vots, do you realize you just contradicted yourself? You say no one has the right to rule over the life of the unborn, then say that states have the right to rule over the life of the unborn. Which is it?

Go over what I said again.

Go over what I said again. Completely against abortion is what I believe in, but the arguments for the other side are not illogical. There's no definitive answer, it's a personal belief. Therefore, the states can delegate it.

Yes, the pro abort arguments

Yes, the pro abort arguments are illogical. They are based on emotion and convenience not morality or science. But still, you can't say "I personally believe the fetus is a human person with right to life; but I think states can make the personal decision to murder that life." It reduces to a relativistic worldview that is inherently contradictory. Murder is prohibited or it is not. Which is it?

Where human life begins is

Where human life begins is purely human opinion. I believe God has created a life upon conception. However, there's no definitive, over empowering, inarguable, argument that I can give to say that's true. Some will say it's not a human life until the first week or so (when organs first start growing, so they're okay with day after pills) or some scientific studies say it's not a human life until after the 2nd trimester.

Regardless, there is no definitive argument to end all. Even though I deeply hold a belief that abortion is wrong at any time, and you are killing a person, it's all about where one thinks life begins. And that's an open debate that one side will never win. That's why the US is so great. We don't try to fit everybody under one umbrella of laws (well at least we're not supposed to). We're supposed to have our constitution and anything else not explicitly allowed or forbidden by the constitution, is left up to the states.