In the course of a comment on the Info Theory blog, odanu wrote:
This is not the only valid pro-choice argument in existance, it is merely the one that is the best answer for the natural rights argument, since natural rights theory derived very heavily from the theories of John Locke and were grounded in the right to own property. In this argument, a person's own body is her property. Unless PD is willing to state baldly and openly that the uterus of a woman is the property of either a man or a fetus, in which case he has denied the natural rights of women as humans, he cannot argue against abortion on the natural rights argument.If owning a piece of property implies the unrestricted right to expel somebody under any circumstances whatsoever, then landlords can expel tenants from upper-story windows even before a nine-month lease is up.
But wait … There's more. In further comments:
Paul, a uterus is not a disconnected entity with a purpose separate from the human being who possesses it. But you have answered my question. In your world, a woman indeed has less civil rights than a corpse. Sharing the same air does not mean I provide you life support, and frankly, that you would use that example suggests that you need to take a course in rudimentary logic.Once most of the human race has begun inhabiting space colonies, ownership of a residence will go with supplying life support. We're in danger of handing too much power to future landlords.
Since the above violates leftist stereotypes of what us reactionaries think, I leave you with a quote from David Ricardo:
Independently of these improvements, in which the community have an immediate, and the landlords a remote interest, the interest of the landlord is always opposed to that of the consumer and manufacturer.