The complexity of life at the molecular level can lead one to appreciate mystical phenomena. You might change.

Dawkins, Dawkins, always Dawkins. I will have to revisit his selfish gene. But I'm sure he's changed his tune since, as regards to the complexity of the amoeba.

Is today a better day??

Tohar1 said he "believes that life does begin at conception". That is the "potential" with alleged rights of cells you are supporting.

Your emotional post is non-responsive. Your faith in mystic "rights" is emotionalism, not knowledge. We know that you "don't think". You don't "know" either. You feel it and try to rationalize it as "DNA and biological processes". You appear to have no idea what rights are and why we have them. They are not biologically inherited from cells at conception.

Your accusing those who reject a meaningless insistence on "rights" of a potential as not knowing what "potential" means, not "understanding DNA and biochemical processes", and having no "foresight" are gratuitous, irrelevant insults. Please consult the guidelines for posting on this forum.

May I play devils advocate and stalk you, seer, all at the same time?

Yes and thank you!

You say, "cells have rights because they have "DNA and biological processes"""

Since cells do have DNA and biological processes, they also, all of them, have potential do be grown into a human being. (I take the liberty to assume you are referring to human cells.)

What about potential gives one rights??

I understand perfectly well what a potential is and do not lack "foresight", regardless of your confused snide insult. Cells do not have rights. Foresight does not mean confusing the potential with the actual as if they were the same thing. We have rights because of what we are as human persons; rights are not mystical insights not inherited from cells.

If you think cells have rights because they have "DNA and biological processes" then you don't understand either biology or the concept of rights. We have rights because of what we are as human beings, not because of DNA in cells with a potential to become a human being.

The notion of a "right to life and liberty" at conception is a mystical notion of rights, not a biological phenomenon. Cells do not have rights. The concept does not apply to cells. Ascribing intrinsic rights to cells is mysticism. Rights are objective principles pertaining to human beings, whose nature gives rise to the conceptual formulation of all principles of morality. No ethics or rights are intrinsic, i.e., mystical, to anything, let alone cells just because they have human genes. There are no cells' rights.

All surgery is healthcare, but there is no moral entitlement to healthcare at the expense of doctors or anyone else made to pay for it. When Ayn Rand spoke of a right to have an abortion she was talking about a moral sanction of freedom of the individual, not leftist entitlements posing as "rights".

It's not splitting hairs. We aren't going to get a properly limited government for generations under current cultural conditions. No party will do that and the politically and philosophically inept and corrupt Libertarian Party is only giving limited government a bad name on top of it.

It seems possible to me that since the American people will likely never vote for a minarchist government we're doomed to continue the slow, steady decline in the quality of life here - fraught with bulging debt, one entitlement program after another, etc. I see Trump trying to reduce regulations and, given the media and public reaction, you'd think he just pushed the button to launch the ICBMs.

In my opinion (a free expression--which is why most of us are gathered here) there is no "right" to abortion. It is legal to have an abortion, and in such, you may have as many as you'd like to have. It also is not healthcare, at best, it's an elective surgery that one chooses. Those of us who believe that life does begin at conception would likely take issue with your "mystical" approach to defending your position. It is no more mystical than any other biological phenomenon, and I hope you can understand that there are two sides to every coin. For my part, I proudly support those who publicly run for office (even if they cannot get more than "ballot status") and espouse their personal and individual beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. It takes a lot of courage to do so, especially when one's beliefs run contrary to many within the party from whom the individuals are seeking the "honor" of endorsement (Libertarians typically don't espouse a pro-life plank in their platform.) Again, this is my opinion, and I am not saying that you don't have the right to yours.

Yeah, we're splitting hairs here. What can a guy like me do as a voter when I want almost no government? I want them to secure the border, maybe fix potholes, help enforce contracts between citizens, protect citizens against violence and that's about it. What would the alternatives be? Certainly, the Libertarian Party jumps up initially getting my attention. When Rand Paul or Ron Paul speak I listen. But other than that all we get is "We'll do this for you and that for you. Investment...blah, blah.." ARGH!

Anarchy is not "peace and freedom". The Libertarian Party has long been confused about anarchism and the requirements for a free society, with all kinds of infighting over it. Over the decades most of them have at least learned not to promote their anarchy in public.

Sorry, but peace and freedom ARE the ideal and should be the long-term goal of civilization, in fact the very definition.
The Libertarian Party is not (yet) an anarchism-oriented party. Some of its members are.

Speak for yourself in not accomplishing much in the real world.

Philosophical understanding is not a "scheme", Those who reject utopian floating abstractions like anarchy and the crackpot fad arguments confined within the miniscule Libertarian Party activists are not "cynics and pessimists". The subjectivism and arbitrary force of anarchy are not an ideal to be sought.

The Libertarian Party is hopeless for a lot more reasons than a general lack of desire for liberty within the general public.

It is too soon for any fundamental reform of government by political means. Changing the course of a nation requires a philosophical revolution. The Libertarian Party does not understand that and doesn't even know how to articulate and defend rational individualism -- as it shows over and over, from Gary Johnson to the pining for anarchism to the obsession with drug laws.

All that is possible politically today is to appeal to what is left of common sense and the American sense of life in order to affect specific policies for the better where and to the degree possible, and to elect the least statist candidates at least partially sympathetic to freedom. Libertarian Party activists don't even know how to do that. They are well known for not operating in reality, being a fringe party that cannot win elections, and having no impact on policy.

The purpose of a proper government is to subordinate the use of force to moral law through the protection of the rights of the individual under objective laws. Anarchists opposing that certainly are advocating the use of arbitrary force. Their context-dropping claims to be only for voluntary actions ignore what they are unleashing. There is no such thing as a "market" for force.