Human rights do not conflict; Human rights have their respective boundaries and they end where another human's rights begin

This is a common argument that I see, that if a right conflicts with another right, we have to tie break those rights essentially.

But there is no tie breaking needed because human rights don't conflict with one another.

You have a right to life, so long as it does not require violating someone else's rights.

So for example, a person trying to rape someone else does not "forfeit" their right or conflict with the rights of their victim. They actually just don't have the right to life in the act of raping someone because it required them to violate someone else's rights in order to carry out the act of rape.

Their RTL extends until they violate the rights of someone else. Their RTL does not extend into areas that violate someone else's rights. And this is different than saying "They have the RTL and that right is violated for the greater cause of ending a rape."

This "Youth for Human Rights" website breaks down human rights in simple bullet point form.

You will see there, the RTL listed as the first right. But the last right listed is very interesting: #30 No one can take away your rights

Right #30 highlights something interesting. It implies that when you violate someone else's rights, you don't forfeit your rights, you didn't have them to begin with.

You always retain your rights, and right #30 creates an implied boundary. This is why a woman always retains her right to bodily autonomy and it cannot be said to conflict with a zef's rights.

If a person had the RTL while violating the rights of someone else, then the person being violated would not have the right to defend themselves by taking their violator's life and would be prosecuted if they did. Because the violator would retain their RTL even during the assault.

So why am I playing this semantics game?

Because if we recognize that rights can conflict and be forfeited, it comes down to which right serves a greater need, or is for a greater good, or is more worthy of being protected.

The distinction is important. When one person violates another person's rights, they cannot expect their human rights to be applicable in such an event.

In the case of unwanted pregnancies, it is the woman's rights that are being violated by the zef. There is no violation of a zefs rights by a person having sex, by being conceived, or by being gestated. Since it is the pregnant person whose rights are being violated, the zefs rights do not extend into this situation. She may rectify her rights violation.

Now some might say that your human right to bodily autonomy does not give you the right to kill.

Actually, it does. If someone is raping you, your right to BA gives you the right to kill. If someone is forcibly trying to take your organs for their own, your BA gives you the right to kill. If a toddler is walking towards marines in the middle of a war with bombs strapped to them, the threat to the marine's lives gives them the right to kill. If a severely mentally disabled person with the mindset of a 5 year old is raping you, you have the right to kill them. And if someone is harboring inside your womb when you do not want them to be, your BA gives you the right to kill.

If you are in the realm of having violated someone else, your human right does not apply.

Seeing as how a zef has violated that person's right to sovereignty over their body by implanting in their uterus against their will, their right to life is not applicable. And it doesn't matter that they are not aware of what they are doing.

A zef's lack of awareness does not invalidate or nullify another person's human rights. My rights are not dependent upon someone else's level of dependency or awareness. My human rights are mine because I am human. That is all that is required for me to exercise my human rights.

Your level of dependency or awareness affects the level of force to be considered in the rectification process. People have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to rectify the rights violation placed upon them. And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the minimum amount of force is also the maximum amount of force: abortion.

And vice versa is true. If someone is trying to end your life, thus violating you, their human right to bodily autonomy & right to life does not extend to this situation, thus you have the right to wound or maim them, even kill them.