With all due respect, I have to ask you the same question I asked Diggity. I understand your argument that life is constitutionally protected, but how do you, too, intend to change what exists? Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion in every state. I seriously doubt you’d get the Supreme Court to ever rule that life begins at conception and must be protected as such throughout the nation. I also doubt you’d ever get enough states to sign onto a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Saying you want something isn’t the same thing as making it happen. Personally? I’d consider the overturning of Roe v. Wade, returning abortion decisions to the states, to be a wonderful victory.
A state-by-state strategy is good because it would be effective, but it is completely unacceptable to have the philosophy that the right isn't inalienable and can be governed away. Paul isn't arguing for the former but the latter. He believes rights can be legislated away at the whim of states. That puts rights and individuals subservient to the government. Others like Palin or Cain (just to use an example) have rightly argued for the former as a strategy while holding on to the belief the right is inalienable.