Natural, Inalienable Rights do not Support the Practice of Abortion

The Right to ChooseI. Which choices are rights?But to ask that first consider: Are all choices rights? The correct reponse would be no, as shown here. Taking property is a choice. But it is considered stealing if that property was owned by another party. Thus, in the instance that taking property that is not self-owned, it is not a right. This shows there to be an exception to the following statement: All choices are rights. In logic jargon, this exception is known as a counterexample [1].So, concerning the original query, there should be a definition to explain the counterexample. I propose that a choice is a right if and only if it there is no duty not to make the choice. This definition is consistent with the Hohfeldian privilege.II. Hohfeldian PrivilegeThe classification system is the Hohfeldian Analytical System and all four incidents are the privilege, the claim, the power, and the immunity. A privilege describes an interaction of permittance. One privilege is the right to pick up a shell off the beach. Thus to have this right, you must have no obligation not to pick it up. [2] An obligation might exist if the beach was privately owned. The right to choose is a type of privilege. In fact, the right to choose describes many privileges. But there are limits to this right. In the previous example the limit came from someone else's right to own property. So, I end this section with this statement:If the right to life is to be the limit for the choice of an abortion or over one's own body to be a right, then it must be shown that the life to be killed carries this right to life by being a person.To add total support for the justification of this statement I feel that I must add the right to life is indeed a duty to not make certain choices. Such a choice is killing a person.III. Inalienable RightsThere are two angles to justify abortion; one being the right of choice over one's own body and the other being the right to choose an abortion. Both are invalid if the unborn baby is shown to be a person. If it is a person, it has the right to life. The right to life is of course an inalienable right. It is not a right that is solely delegated by government. This would make it a legal right by the way. If it isn't a legal right, it is inalienable. Claiming the unborn do not express the right to life sets a dangerous precedent. The precedent that throughout life we may not carry the same inalienable rights at any other developmental point. Inalienable rights are not meant to be seperable from persons; this precedent would actually mean inalienable rights do not exist. IV. Lack of Negative PrecedentCommonly coming from advocates of the right of choice over one's own body, there are claims that abortion avoids the precedent that government can force our choices. However, in a way this is alredy set. Government regularly enforces the abstinence of choices such as murder and theft. Taking to precedent to include choices that are rights, this precedent cannot possibly be set if the basis is actually protecting the natural rights of persons.V. The Fundamental Importance of Right to LifeThe right to life is logically neccessary in order to express all other rights. One cannot choose without living for example. It is fundamental; thus its Hohfeldian classificiation is irrelevant.Summation1. Right to choose can only exist if no duty exists not to choose.2. A right can act as a duty such as the right to life and the right to own property.3. A 'unborn baby' is a person, therefore expressing the right to live.4. The practice of abortion is not supported by natural, inalnable rights because natural, inalienable rights protect the life of a person abortion tries to kill.Sources[1] http://www.mathwords.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...