What is the argument of "I have the right, so I can"?

So I've seen this argument a lot, but I've forgotten the name of the fallacy. It goes like this:

• Person A: You can't do X, because it's wrong for Y reasons.

• Person B: Yes I can, because I have the right to do X.

Pro-choice people use this kind of argument all the time in abortion.

• Person A: Abortion is wrong because you are murdering a baby.

• Person B: Well, my body, my choice. I have the right to an abortion, and you can't take my rights away.

Another example (let's say in California) is:

• Person A: You know that it's extremely dangerous and wrong of you to get burnt off marijuana every night, right?

• Person B: But it's legal, so I can.

I understand that I could've searched through the fallacies, but I've completely forgotten the name, so searching through would take an insufficient and vast amount of time.

Pro-choice people use this kind of argument all the time in abortion.

Person A: Abortion is wrong because you are murdering a baby.

Person B: Well, my body, my choice. I have the right to an abortion, and you can't take my rights away.

Abortion is removing the baby from the mother's womb before its natural time. Murdering it is the wrong thing. They need not be the same, and the appeal of the statement is to emotion. Moreover, as a logical point, the consequence of inadequate medical facilities/capabilities is often the death of the baby/fetus/conceptus, but the fallacy is arguing from consequences.

I see no issue from logic about "my body, my choice", but Person B may not expand that right to my or others' paying for her choice. Tying together the ideas, Person B's right to cease carrying the baby does not include the right to abort it knowingly destructively, imo, but has the right to the core idea of not having to carry the baby to full term.

If there is no legal sanction prohibiting abortion, then abortion (in this jurisdiction) is not murder; it is killing something that is alive but, by definition, it is not murder. Someone may wish to argue that it *should* be outlawed as murder and, if this is case, they will now have to construct an argument to prove their position.

In so far as some specific action is not prohibited in law, then there is no impediment *in terms of legal* sanction to someone’s doing this thing, including abortion when there is no sanction against it. For instance, there is no legal sanction where I live to my flying a kite. That is badly interpreted as saying that I have the *right* to fly a kite ... it’s just that there is no legal impediment to my doing so. Unless I want to fly my kite in the middle of a highway. But were I to do that, I would not be breaking a “you cannot fly a kite” law, but some other prohibitions that concerns jay-walking and disrupting the traffic. Were I to fly my kite as a wedding reception I would probably not be breaking any law, but there is (usually) a moral prohibition not to disrupt the proceedings and disrespect everyone present. Same for smoking weed when there is no legal sanction that prohibits doing that.

A right is usually (always?) codified in some specific declaration of rights that is ratified or somehow encoded in a wider legal system, exemplified by the European Convention on Human Rights being codified into the laws of the member states. Thus, under this Convention, I have the right to life. The right is not so much something that is owed to me or grants me some entitlement so much as imposing on my government and other authorities a legally binding obligation to not treat me in certain ways. It’s no much a question of what *I may do*, but a question of what government agencies *may NOT do*.

There is no fallacy here. If you have the right then you can.

You have Person A asserting that "You can't do X, because it's wrong for Y reasons."
The only justification you could have for saying you can't do X is "because X is illegal." If it's not illegal then you have no right to tell someone they can't do it (except maybe for children, other people over whom you have legal guardianship).

As to is being "wrong for Y reasons", that could be used as an argument for why a person should not do X, but then that assertion needs to be backed up. You need to make a case for why X is wrong.

In both of the examples that you give Person A tells Person B that they "can't" do the act in question and then justifies forbidding the act with an assertion that they present as fact. If you want someone to accept that they should not have an abortion because it would be "murdering a baby" then you need to demonstrate:

1. The fetus in question qualifies as a "baby."
2. The act of having an abortion constitutes murder.
3. The fetus' right to life outweighs the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

Likewise, in your second example, you have Person A asserting that "it's extremely dangerous and wrong of you to get burnt off marijuana every night" yet Person A provides neither evidence of the alleged danger of using marijuana nor any justification for why that makes using it wrong.

If a person came up to me and said that I'd respond "No, actually I have no reason to think it's either dangerous or wrong."
(Disclaimer: I actually don't use cannabis in any form.)

Basically what it comes down to is, if you want to counter the argument "I have a right to do X, therefore I can" then you need to demonstrate that the person in fact does not have a right to do X.

If there is no legal sanction prohibiting abortion, then abortion (in this jurisdiction) is not murder; it is killing something that is alive but, by definition, it is not murder.

Wait a second, isn't that an equivocation?

The "right" (regardless of the jurisdiction) is based on the scientific determination of what is alive.

The right itself depends on what the scientific definition is ... "when life begins". The right to an abortion is not subject to a right to destroy life or kill, but on the science of when life is viable.

Is it not?