The GOVERNMENT, to use your word, "discovered" the right to commit abortion.
Do you deny the existence of this right? Yes or no.
If you affirm the "discovery" of this right, and you claim humans have the right to life, how do you reconcile the existence of mutually contradictory rights?
Is the mother's right to murder her unborn child superior? The law today certainly says that the case.
Yet, if the child's right to life is inferior to the mother's right to commit murder upon her baby, did the child ever have the the right to live in the first place?
The answer to that must be "no", because contradictory rights can't exist.
Only if the unborn child is protected by law from murder by her mother can it be said to have a right to life.
White people at one time had the right to own black people.
White people lost the freedom to exercise that right.
Do white people still have the right to own black people?
According to your arguments, a supressed right still exists regardless of the individual's ability to express it.
However, since the blacks have the right to be their owners of their own bodies, how is this supposed right to own black people reconciled with the black person's right to own his own body?
Answer: The right to own black people was a fiction of the law during a certain period of history, and the right of black people and white people to own their own bodies is a legal fiction of this time, and in future times the roles can be reversed or changed in any way possible. Because its the law that exists, and the laws define the rights contained within it.
There are no innate rights.