by Cameron Chapman

Created on: October 16, 2008

The question of whether or not a woman has a right to choose an abortion really comes down to both the right to life and property rights. Every person on earth has the right to life. This does not just mean physical life (the act of being alive), but living one's life as one chooses (so long as that does not impose on anyone else's rights). Every person also has property rights, and a person's own body is the most basic form of property.

If we hold that a right cannot exist if it imposes on the rights of another, then a fetus does not have a right to life. A fetus's right to life infringes on both the woman's right to life and her right to property. The woman's rights are established prior to a pregnancy, so therefore they continue once she becomes pregnant. A fetus is present in a woman's body by permission, not by right. Sometimes that permission is not expressly granted (as in an accidental pregnancy), but it is still a privilege, not a right. Privilege, by definition, is something that may be revoked by the grantor of said privilege. In this case, the woman has the right to revoke the fetus's permission at any time. She has the right to control her own body (her property), and to control her own life.Once a fetus is born, it becomes a citizen and has protected rights, including the right to life and right to property.

Think of it this way: if I choose to cut off my thumb, does my thumb have a right to life? It is living, but has no ability to survive on its own. If my thumb is constantly in pain, and I choose to cut it off rather than live my life on pain killers, who has the right to stop me? My thumb is alive only because it is attached to my body. Because it is my body, I have every right to control what happens to it. The same is true of a fetus. A developing fetus is incapable of living outside of the mother's body without major medical intervention (theoretically, you could keep a thumb or other limb alive for at least a short period of time through medical intervention, but no matter how much you feed it or otherwise care for it, it still has to be kept artificially alive or it dies). Until the fetus leaves the mother's body, it is, for all practical purposes, just another part of the mother's body. Until it is no longer a part of the mother's body, it should be treated as another body part.

The argument could also be made that a fetus would impose upon the right of the pursuit of happiness, which is better phrased as the right for people to live for themselves and to worry about their own interests first, before that of their neighbors or others. A woman should not be forced to put her own interests and her own happiness aside for another, including an unborn fetus. Her rights supersede those of a fetus, as a fetus has no rights (as was previously established).

The basic premise behind most anti-choice arguments is that a fetus has a "right" to life. But, since that "right" would infringe upon both the mother's right to life and the mother's property rights, the fetus does not, in fact, have any rights. Even in the U.S. Constitution, rights are only granted to those who are citizens of the U.S., and in order for you to be a citizen in any country, you first have to be BORN!

Learn more about this author, Cameron Chapman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.