That aside, which is the natural right, the right of the baby to live, or the right of the woman to "control her own body"?
Let's put it this way, I'm not going to make the effort the replace "right to commit murder on her unborn child" to "right to control who and if anyone occupies her uterus". That's not a material alteration since for the purposes of this argument it was assumed, and I hope it didn't need to be stated, that the process of murdering the child was merely the abortion procedure of your choice.
So state explicitly: Is the right of a woman to control her body and thereby the occupancy of her uterus a natural right in your theory, or is it not?
This question must be answered by you.
Which right does not exist as a natural right? Remember, since rights are innate, there cannot exist a temporary suspension of the right of the mother to control her own body while knocked up. Look up the word "inalienable" sometime.
We're turning blue in anticipation.
If you disagree, name a non-functional right.
Slavery predates government.
That's the fact of human slavery in the United States. If you're trying to say the soul can't be owned, that's nice. The box the soul was in was very much for sale and ownership.
You're problem is you've decided that you're going to be the arbiter of what is and what is not a "natural" right, and your feelings tell you that people can't be owned, which flies in the face of human history.
As you stated, rights exist whether they're expressed or not. Presently, force is being used to suppress the rights of people to own other people. If and when that force expires, rest assured that people will resume their habit of owning others.
You're assuming that today's state of affairs, based on your innate moral sense, somehow reflects reality. You can't show that slave ownership is not a natural right. You've argued that natural rights exist even in suppression. Merely because some people own slaves and suprress their slaves right to own others does not contrue proof that slave ownership is not a natural right.
What you're really arguing here is that because people have a natural right to be free then people can't have a natural right to own slaves, and you're blind to the fact that the opposite statement is equally true, namely, that if people have a natural right to own slaves, then people can't have a natural right to be free.
Your emotions, not logic, cause you to decide that one is "natural" and not the other, even though you yourself claim that rights exist in suppression.
Logically, EITHER alternative, given your postulates, is possible and real. You're stating that mutually exclusive rights exist.
Viable cultures have existed in history in which the natural right to own slaves is exercised, and others in which the natural right to not be owned are exercised. That the latter case is the modern norm does not alter the facts of history.
You've failed to define what a "natural right" is to the exclusion of their contradictory opposites.
Since either alternative may exist, it's simple to recognize that neither, in fact, have any need to exist, and that human societies are expressions of the balance of powers between groups and individuals, and that discussions of "rights" are nothing more than discussiong on the limitations of those powers.
YOU established the existence of non-expressed rights. That axiom leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the idea of rights is not an essential element in discussing human societies, merely a verbal atavism held over from the superstitious times when it was assumed the rights of society descended from God.
You can't understand this because you can't surrender your superstitions.
It took me years to gain the epiphany, and I know many aren't up to the task. But it can't hurt you to try.
What you've failed to do is prove that the right to own others does not exist.
I've proved that the use of the concept of rights in language is a convenience encouraging mental sloth, and nothing but a convenience. It is not an accurate description of processes of human interaction.
What I was arguing in that case was that the free expression of one right, that of bodily ownership and control, contradicts and nullifies the free expression of another right, that of life. We're not discussing an abuse of power suppressing rights, but the free expression of the rights themselves.