There is a lot of talk about rights now days, many of them rights that have not been considered rights before. I read an article discussing rights and found what made a lot of sense to me. The discussion was about fundamental rights and conflicting rights. The definition of a fundamental right given there is "Those rights which all men can simultaneously claim without forcing someone else to serve their needs." (Latter-day Conservative, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", Lesson 2, Video by Joel Skousen, "What is a Fundamental Right", https://www.latterdayconservative.com/education/a-course-on-liberty/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness/) The thoughts expressed in this post come from that website.
Many of the things being called rights now days don't meet this definition. They could be called conflicting rights. An example of a conflicting right would be the right to live in a neighborhood where your property values will remain high. This requires that someone else not be allowed to paint their house hot pink with black polk a dots. In order for your right to be protected, another's right to paint their house what ever color they want has to be curtailed. They must serve your need.
Another example - in order for you to be in a room and experience peace and quiet, other people must not be allowed to make annoying noises. They are forced to serve your need and don't have the right to do what they want. Therefore experiencing peace and quiet in the room is not a fundamental right.
Their are some exceptions. Consider the fundamental right to life. This is a right you can claim without forcing others to serve your needs - except for children. Children require someone to serve their needs until they become capable of caring for themselves. This right falls into the category of the right of contract. The right of contract states that when an innocent third party has been damaged by your actions, you now have brought upon yourself a binding contract with the innocent third party to make it right.
Some claim they are free to choose abortion. However, they exercised their right to choose when they choose to engage in sexual relations. They cannot absolve themself of the consequences of their choice to have sexual relations any more than they could absolve themself of the consequences of driving their car through the fence of their neighbor and just drive away. There is now a third party, an innocent third party, that has been affected by those actions and therefore there is now a binding contract with the innocent third party. They started the process and therefore they have caused a contract. They are liable to support that child and they are not free to disavow that contract.
