Pro Choice (arguing from a self-ownership position)

Okay, I am going to keep this round somewhat brief due to other obligations but plan on expanding my arguments in round three. The very idea of self-ownership is one binds every other principle in western political and legal thinking. Both the American and European traditions exemplified the position. John Locke is only one of many that see the right to property an inalienable right, one that eclipses all others. Locke talked about rights of property not in sense people have an inherent right to land or possession but everyone property in the most basic sense of ownership of self, specifically dominion over body. One"s body is a form of property, in the sense we use a source to make a living. More importantly, self-ownership is the very basis that facilitates independence and allows one to pursue happiness. The philosophical argument is the foundation for economic property rights in the United States and elsewhere. This right to property allows me to start a business and employ people. As a result, they give up their rights and privileges: civil liberties like speech, the ability to take the property an employee, as well as their intellectual property, as is the case with companies like Apple and Google. Con takes the position that life begins at conception, likely based along similar lines as the argument as my own. Con however states the following: 1.Life begins at conception 2.The fetus/embryo is human life, and it is therefore morally reprehensible to terminate this life. For the first proposition that life begins at conception simply means there is a potential for a person to result from a fertilized egg. However, this does not trump the bodily rights on the woman to make decisions over her reproductive organs. Moreover, life does not mean a person with rights including the right to sue and be sued, right to speak or assembly, nor does it entitle the "life" to due process under the law. These are protections and rights people are entitled to under law. The second argument continues to equate life and personhood, or being an individual capable of making conscious choice. The claim it is "moral reprehensible to terminate a life" is a value judgment. However, what Con appears to be saying is that terminating a fetus is the same as killing a person, therefore termination should viewed and treated the same as murder. This leads to all kinds of interesting legal situations, including a case where a car accident where a driver causes the accident results in a miscarriage, directly attributable to the accident. By the standards set out by Con it would have to be so. While fetus/embryo cannot file a tort compliant against another party, claiming damages, Con would likely favor a purposed Iowa law that allows women who have "abortion regret," to sue a doctor for malpractice, including "suing for physical injury, a patient could sue for emotional distress, which would include a negative emotional or mental reaction, grief, anxiety, or worry." [1] The statute would give women ten years to sue. But, this is probably this would perhaps be too lenient for Con. Logically termination of life would mean both the woman and the doctor were engage in carry out a murder, right? [1] http://www.dailykos.com...#