Human life is human life.
This fails as a red herring fallacy - the issue concerns when one becomes a person entitled to Constitutional protections according to the law:
'The Court in
Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally."
[...]
In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
If Paul is going to introduce such legislation with the intent of it becoming law, it must conform with the Constitution and settled accepted law, which this proposed 'legislation' does not do.
Citizens are at liberty to decide for themselves when life begins, consistent with their own good faith and good conscience, absent unwarranted interference from the state, their right to do so safeguarded by the Constitution.
Likewise, a woman's right to privacy is immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.