Abortion In Self-defence - BBC

Abortion in self-defence

Even if we accept that the foetus is a person with a right to live, this doesn't mean that all abortions are wrong.

In some circumstances it may be ethical for a mother to have an abortion to defend herself from the danger to her mental or physical health that continuing with the pregnancy would cause.

Where continuing the pregnancy threatens the mother's life or health

If continuing with the pregnancy would cause the mother's death, even those most strongly against abortion accept that this is a case where abortion is ethically acceptable.

Pregnant woman having a checkup

(NB: some people argue that this is a case of the doctrine of double effect rather than a self-defence argument, and that the death of the foetus is merely the side-effect of medical treatment to save the mother's life.)

It is generally accepted that a person has the right to defend themselves when they are in danger, and that they may use violence, or even kill in extreme circumstances, in order to protect themselves from physical attack.

This can apply even when the person causing the danger is entirely innocent of any bad intent, completely unaware that they are causing a danger, or is in some other way not responsible for being a danger.

Thus if a foetus (entirely innocently) endangers the life of a mother, it's argued that the mother has the right to abort it.

A person may also have the right to kill when threatened with severe harm but not actual death (e.g. a pregnancy that would permanently damage the mother but not kill her).

And a person may get someone else to take the necessary action to protect them (e.g. the doctor who performs the abortion).

There are a couple of objections to note:

• in most cases the mother has brought the danger on herself by becoming pregnant - should this change the moral argument?
  • in practical terms it won't, because if the pregnancy kills the mother it will probably kill the foetus too
  • the mother could argue that she only consented to becoming pregnant, and did not willingly consent to having a defective and life-threatening pregnancy
• unlike most cases of self-defence, the foetus isn't actually doing anything that threatens the mother - does this make a difference?

Non-physical threats to the mother

But supposing the mother is not in physical danger, what then?

There are a number of cases where some people argue that a woman should have the right to an abortion, such as:

• damage to mental health
• damage to family
• damage to career prospects
• damage to financial prospects
• damage to plans for her life

The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia.

But if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life, then these cases of self-defence may be arguable.

Top