There is no such right as there is no corresponding moral obligation or duty to save a life. This "right" is a demonstration of aforementioned muddle between morally commendable, desirable and decent ("ought", "should") and morally obligatory, result of other people's rights ("must").

In some countries, obligation to save life is legally codified. But while law of land may create a LEGAL right and corresponding LEGAL obligations - it does not always or necessarily create a moral or an ethical right and corresponding moral duties and obligations.

IF. The Right to Save One's Own Life

The right to self-defence is a subset of more general and all-pervasive right to save one's own life. One has right to take certain actions or avoid taking certain actions in order to save his or her own life.

It is generally accepted that one has right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally intends to take one's life. It is debatable, though, whether one has right to kill an innocent person who unknowingly and unintentionally threatens to take one's life.

IG. The Right to Terminate One's Life

See "The Murder of Oneself".

IH. The Right to Have One's Life Terminated

The right to euthanasia, to have one's life terminated at will, is restricted by numerous social, ethical, and legal rules, principles, and considerations. In a nutshell - in many countries in West one is thought to has a right to have one's life terminated with help of third parties if one is going to die shortly anyway and if one is going to be tormented and humiliated by great and debilitating agony for rest of one's remaining life if not helped to die. Of course, for one's wish to be helped to die to be accommodated, one has to be in sound mind and to will one's death knowingly, intentionally, and forcefully.

II. Issues in Calculus of Rights

IIA. The Hierarchy of Rights

All human cultures have hierarchies of rights. These hierarchies reflect cultural mores and lores and there cannot, therefore, be a universal, or eternal hierarchy.

In Western moral systems, Right to Life supersedes all other rights (including right to one's body, to comfort, to avoidance of pain, to property, etc.).

Yet, this hierarchical arrangement does not help us to resolve cases in which there is a clash of EQUAL rights (for instance, conflicting rights to life of two people). One way to decide among equally potent claims is randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we could add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a mother's life is endangered by continued existence of a fetus and assuming both of them have a right to life we can decide to kill fetus by adding to mother's right to life her right to her own body and thus outweighing fetus' right to life.

IIB. The Difference between Killing and Letting Die

There is an assumed difference between killing (taking life) and letting die (not saving a life). This is supported by IE above. While there is a right not to be killed - there is no right to have one's own life saved. Thus, while there is an obligation not to kill - there is no obligation to save a life.

IIC. Killing Innocent

Often continued existence of an innocent person (IP) threatens to take life of a victim (V). By "innocent" we mean "not guilty" - not responsible for killing V, not intending to kill V, and not knowing that V will be killed due to IP's actions or continued existence.

It is simple to decide to kill IP to save V if IP is going to die anyway shortly, and remaining life of V, if saved, will be much longer than remaining life of IP, if not killed. All other variants require a calculus of hierarchically weighted rights. (See "Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).

One form of calculus is utilitarian theory. It calls for maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). In other words, life, happiness, or pleasure of many outweigh life, happiness, or pleasure of few. It is morally permissible to kill IP if lives of two or more people will be saved as a result and there is no other way to save their lives. Despite strong philosophical objections to some of premises of utilitarian theory - I agree with its practical prescriptions.

In this context - dilemma of killing innocent - one can also call upon right to self defence. Does V have a right to kill IP regardless of any moral calculus of rights? Probably not. One is rarely justified in taking another's life to save one's own. But such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have flip side of confusion - understandable and perhaps inevitable behaviour (self defence) is mistaken for a MORAL RIGHT. That most V's would kill IP and that we would all sympathize with V and understand its behaviour does not mean that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may have had a right to kill IP - but this right is not automatic, nor is it all-encompassing.

III. Abortion and Social Contract

But whole debate is unnecessary. There is no conflict between rights of mother and those of her fetus because there is never a conflict between parties to an agreement. By signing an agreement, mother gave up some of her rights and limited others. This is normal practice in contracts: they represent compromises, optimization (and not maximization) of parties' rights and wishes. The rights of fetus are an inseparable part of contract which mother signed voluntarily and reasonably. They are derived from mother's behaviour. Getting willingly pregnant (or assuming risk of getting pregnant by not using contraceptives reasonably) – is behaviour which validates and ratifies a contract between her and fetus. Many contracts are by behaviour, rather than by a signed piece of paper. Numerous contracts are verbal or behavioural. These contracts, though implicit, are as binding as any of their written, more explicit, brethren. Legally (and morally) situation is crystal clear: mother signed some of her rights away in this contract. Even if she regrets it – she cannot claim her rights back by annulling contract unilaterally. No contract can be annulled this way – consent of both parties is required. Many times we realize that we have entered a bad contract, but there is nothing much that we can do about it. These are rules of game.

Thus two remaining questions: (a) can this specific contract (pregnancy) be annulled and, if so (b) in which circumstances – can be easily settled using modern contract law. Yes, a contract can be annulled and voided if signed under duress, involuntarily, by incompetent persons (e.g., insane), or if one of parties made a reasonable and full scale attempt to prevent its signature, thus expressing its clear will not to sign contract. It is also terminated or voided if it would be unreasonable to expect one of parties to see it through. Rape, contraception failure, life threatening situations are all such cases.

This could be argued against by saying that, in case of economic hardship, f or instance, damage to mother's future is certain. True, her value- filled, meaningful future is granted – but so is detrimental effect that fetus will have on it, once born. This certainty cannot be balanced by UNCERTAIN value-filled future life of embryo. Always, preferring an uncertain good to a certain evil is morally wrong. But surely this is a quantitative matter – not a qualitative one. Certain, limited aspects of rest of mother's life will be adversely effected (and can be ameliorated by society's helping hand and intervention) if she does have baby. The decision not to have it is both qualitatively and qualitatively different. It is to deprive unborn of all aspects of all his future life – in which he might well have experienced happiness, values, and meaning.

The questions whether fetus is a Being or a growth of cells, conscious in any manner, or utterly unconscious, able to value his life and to want them – are all but irrelevant. He has potential to lead a happy, meaningful, value-filled life, similar to ours, very much as a one minute old baby does. The contract between him and his mother is a service provision contract. She provides him with goods and services that he requires in order to materialize his potential. It sounds very much like many other human contracts. And this contract continue well after pregnancy has ended and birth given.

Consider education: children do not appreciate its importance or value its potential – still, it is enforced upon them because we, who are capable of those feats, want them to have tools that they will need in order to develop their potential. In this and many other respects, human pregnancy continues well into fourth year of life (physiologically it continues in to second year of life - see "Born Alien"). Should location of pregnancy (in uterus, in vivo) determine its future? If a mother has right to abort at will, why should mother be denied her right to terminate " pregnancy" AFTER fetus emerges and pregnancy continues OUTSIDE her womb? Even after birth, woman's body is main source of food to baby and, in any case, she has to endure physical hardship to raise child. Why not extend woman's ownership of her body and right to it further in time and space to post-natal period?