1. Paul assumes that he, a religion, or government has a right to determine when "life" starts... even though it's impossible to define a subjective term with varying personal beliefs.
His religion believes that life starts at conception, while another might say at birth.
Because we cannot define "life" with our subjective personal beliefs... we need to use something else to determine when the fetus can be considered its own person to in turn then have the "right to 'life'".
2. The only definitive and objective thing we can look at is the property rights of body parts and the relation between them.
The egg is part of a woman's body and turns itself into a zygote once it receives a new strand of DNA via the sperm. The sperm is a cell of a body that has a certain lifespan, and in so, can be equated to a patch live skin cells that are cut off of someone's body, no longer of being part of them as part of themselves, but instead their property. Once the man voluntarily gives up those cells to someone else, they are no longer his own and they are now property. The parts that make up this vessel for the strand of DNA decomposes into either waste or nutrients just as food is when we ingest it and even regarding the transference of nutrients and waste to and from the fetus.
In the transformation of the egg to zygote, it's still the ownership of the woman's body, as it never left the posession
3. Your usage of the word "right" is subjective as you're referring to your personal moral belief. Seeing as "Liberty" is not intertwined, but only related, to our personal beliefs... as one secures the other for us individually while the other if forced on others unsecures someone's liberty. That being the case, you can't use your personal morals/beliefs to define liberty.
Libertarian principle is at its core to do ANYTHING you want (real freedom) for the sake of securing your happiness as long as it doesn't impede on someone else's pursuit of the same.
Libertarian principle is NOT the adherence to what you or your religious belief believe is right or wrong and then enforcing those morals on others.
4. You would make a better Constitution party member than libertarian philosopher. They are well known for interpreting the Constitution to fit their personal beliefs so they can then enforce their beliefs on others... the very opposite of libertarian principle.
Just because Paul is an honest man who sticks to his principles of attempting to preserve what he thinks are others' liberties, doesn't make him the #1 expert on libertarian principle. I'm not claiming I'm an expert either, or that I have the willpower to act like a libertarian in every aspect of my life (as we are all human and are flawed). That doesn't mean I haven't made valid points and counter-arguments with sound logic and evidence that invalidate your positions and own arguments.
I doubt Paul himself would have a counter-argument to this aside from trying to express the "violence" of abortion as trying to set a religiously biased ("'life' at conception") example.
(And before you question how I feel about RP, please feel free to check out my car. Just because I support his message doesn't mean I think he's perfect. He's the first person to admit that he's not... even if it seems like he is by comparison to most.)
Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: