Abortion is self-defense

TheHedoMinimalist

Suppose that we learn that a fetus really is a person and gets awarded all the legal rights that an adult person typically gets. I think that abortion could still be implicitly legalized because it can be considered as a form of self-defense killing. Here’s the analogy that I have in mind:

Suppose that a woman is relaxing at home with her friend who is in a wheelchair. Suddenly, she sees her son sleepwalking towards them. As she approaches her son to try to wake him up, her son starts attacking her. The woman can’t do anything to stop her son from continuing the attack. If the attack continues, then the woman will experience a lot of pain and some permanent damage to her body. She will also have expensive medical bills. There’s also a tiny chance that she will die. Her friend in a wheelchair cannot do anything to stop the attack either unless he pulls out his pistol and shoots the son. He asks the mother if she wants him to shoot her son. The mother responds affirmatively and the shot is fired and her son dies.

It seems that most self-defense laws would liberate both the friend in a wheelchair and the mother from any criminal punishment for the killing of the son. This is because the son doesn’t have to pose a significant threat to the mother’s life or have malevolent intentions in order for lethal force to be justifiably used against him if there’s a lack of a non-lethal way to stop him. This case seems to be pretty analogous to abortion. The consequences for both mothers for refusing to authorize the killing of their sons are similar because the pregnant mother will also have to experience extreme pain, permanent body damage, expensive medical bills and a small possibility of death. In addition, the friend in a wheelchair is similar to an abortion provider as he enables the mother to protect herself from her son.

So, it seems to me that someone who believes that abortion should be illegal should also think that either the mother who got attacked or her friend in a wheelchair should be liable for her son’s death. But, I think this would be repugnant to most American anti-abortion advocates as they tend to be conservatives that also support very permissive self-defense laws. Ironically enough, it is the most pro-life US states that would be most likely to protect the mother and her wheelchair friend from any criminal liability. In fact, those states sometimes even allow you to shoot someone for just trespassing on your property because you are supposedly only “standing your ground” and you should not be required to just yield to the trespasser. I don’t understand how the pro-life supporters of such laws don’t seem to think that a woman having an abortion is also just standing her ground against a baby that threatens to cause her extreme pain and damage her body permanently.

Outlander

Eh. If this was one of those "funny forums" I'd rate this post 5 stars ironically.

Sleepwalking is non intentional. Normal pregnancy outside of .. "coerced measures" is. So. No. lol

Echarmion

↪TheHedoMinimalist

↪Outlander

It'd be an interesting case of provoked defense, which itself is handled differently in different jurisdictions.

In the roman legal tradition, self-defense is usually a "strong" right, which is to say strict proportionality doesn't apply. You can defend yourself effectively, even if there were other, less damaging but more risky options. This is usually considered to be the result of self-defense being both protection of the self and protection of law, since the attacker is considered in breach of the law.

Obviously abortion is not also protecting the law, which is why it's usually not classed as self-defense. Being pregnant is not an attack by the fetus.

Defense against children, mentally ill or otherwise disabled persons can be classed under self-defense, but the rules that apply are usually different. Strict proportionality will apply, with perhaps duties to avoid conflict as far as possible. None of that seems to be of much help to shed light on the abortion discussion though.

I tend to class abortion as one of those kinds of personal decisions where one might be able to make a moral argument in a specific case, but there is very little point in trying to make exact legal rules, since those will very rarely be needed and if they are, they are unlikely to work exactly right.

TheMadFool

the pregnant mother will also have to experience extreme pain, permanent body damage, expensive medical bills and a small possibility of death — TheHedoMinimalist

A very good post by all standards - a fresh perspective to a vexing problem in this age of modern medicine :up:

However, killing in self-defense is only permissible when there's a threat to life and that seems to be missing from your list of undesirable consequences for the mother. By the way, to my knowledge, current practice allows the termination of pregnancies when there's a risk to the mother's life. Thank you again for opening up a new front in this pitched battle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Excellent!

turkeyMan

↪TheHedoMinimalist

I don't like to argue as much as i used to so i'll say this, "Uber is the Future" so you are not entirely wrong. Based on what i personally know it is very very wrong.

TheHedoMinimalist

Sleepwalking is non intentional. Normal pregnancy outside of .. "coerced measures" is. So. No. lol — Outlander

I don’t think that it’s appropriate to say that normal pregnancy is intentional if it hasn’t been planned. That’s like saying that if I accidentally hit someone with my car that I did so intentionally just because I chose to drive a car that day. You might say that I should be liable for running the person over if I was driving the car in an unsafe manner but it seems unfair to punish someone who was driving their car safely and then had a random suicidal person jump suddenly in front of their car. Similarly, it seems unfair to punish someone for an abortion if they were practicing reasonably safe sex.

TheHedoMinimalist

However, killing in self-defense is only permissible when there's a threat to life and that seems to be missing from your list of undesirable consequences for the mother. By the way, to my knowledge, current practice allows the termination of pregnancies when there's a risk to the mother's life. Thank you again for opening up a new front in this pitched battle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Excellent! — TheMadFool

Thank you for your compliments! I just want to point out that pregnancy always can pose a risk to a woman’s life and the doctors may just be ignorant of a particular woman’s risk. Because of this, I think it’s safe to say that women always risk their life when they decide to continue a pregnancy. Additionally, I think the view that self-defense is only justified to preserve human life is a strange one to most people. It seems that if someone tries to torture you or tries permanently damage to your body by trying to tattoo a penis on your forehead, you would be justified in killing that person if it’s the only thing that can prevent them from harming you in a serious manner. Most self-defense laws would allow self-defense if you face “severe harm” without it and you had no other means to avoid that harm and “severe harm” is rarely defined so it could include the torturous pain of pregnancy and the bodily damage that it causes. So, unless your typical self-defense laws are unjustified, it seems like abortion should be protected under common self-defense laws.

TheHedoMinimalist

Defense against children, mentally ill or otherwise disabled persons can be classed under self-defense, but the rules that apply are usually different. Strict proportionality will apply, with perhaps duties to avoid conflict as far as possible. None of that seems to be of much help to shed light on the abortion discussion though. — Echarmion

Can you explain to me the concept of strict proportionality? Does it mean that you cannot harm someone in self-defense more than he will likely harm you if you didn’t take the self-defense measure?

Outlander

That’s like saying that if I accidentally hit someone with my car that I did so intentionally just because I chose to drive a car that day. — TheHedoMinimalist

No, it's not. A person, male or female, who is not under the influence of debilitating substances, who is not physically forced or coerced, and is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids, is literally what defines a legal adult, de facto of course. The idea that an adult who is not aware that sex may produce children is akin to a mental invalid, one that should legally not be allowed to drive a car, operate machinery, or otherwise hold any position beyond perhaps cooking fries or flipping a burger. And even that i'd remain skeptical on. There is no comparison. Sure, perhaps someone can become drunk or perhaps be ignorant enough due to young age who produces a child. On that tangent, someone can become drunk and run a bus from an orphanage off the road killing 50 children. There is no alleviation of responsibility. With exception to ignorance due to youth or mental incapacity which of course changes things.

TheHedoMinimalist

not. A person, male or female, who is not under the influence of debilitating substances, who is not physically forced or coerced, and is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids, is literally what defines a legal adult, de facto of course. — Outlander

Yes, and driving a car can result in people dying as well and every legal adult understands this as well. This doesn’t entail that everyone should always be responsible for killing someone while driving their car so why should someone always be held responsible for a pregnancy simply because they chose to have sex?

Echarmion

Can you explain to me the concept of strict proportionality? Does it mean that you cannot harm someone in self-defense more than he will likely harm you if you didn’t take the self-defense measure? — TheHedoMinimalist

It means the mode of defense must be appropriate to the threat, so you're not allowed to simply use the safest option for you, but have to consider less dangerous alternatives. The measures used will usually also have to be in the same ballpark as the threat, so no responding to theft with deadly force.

No, it's not. A person, male or female, who is not under the influence of debilitating substances, who is not physically forced or coerced, and is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids, is literally what defines a legal adult, de facto of course. — Outlander

Awareness isn't usually considered the same as intent though. So while pregnancy is an entirely predictable consequence of sex, it's not thereby an intentional one.

This doesn’t entail that everyone should always be responsible for killing someone while driving their car so why should someone always be held responsible for a pregnancy simply because they chose to have sex? — TheHedoMinimalist

Responsibility is kind of an odd concept to use here, I think, because responsibility is usually to someone. Responsibilities occur in relations, they define obligations and duties (or the lack thereof, as with the common use of "responsible adult") between people. But what would responsibility for pregnancy entail?

TheHedoMinimalist

The measures used will usually also have to be in the same ballpark as the threat, so no responding to theft with deadly force. — Echarmion

So, suppose that someone responds with lethal force towards another because it was the only way to avoid experiencing extreme physical pain. Would you say that this constitutes strict proportionality?

Responsibility is kind of an odd concept to use here, I think, because responsibility is usually to someone. Responsibilities occur in relations, they define obligations and duties (or the lack thereof, as with the common use of "responsible adult") between people. But what would responsibility for pregnancy entail? — Echarmion

Well, the pregnancy could be said to entail the responsibility to the human fetus inside the mother that the pro-lifers would classify as a person.

GTTRPNK

Wow. This is really simple.

Not analogous at all.

A sleepwalker can be taken down pretty easily. My brother used to do it and I just talked to him until he woke up.

If that doesn't work, you can: Wrap them in a blanket. Splash cold water on them. Threaten to eat all of their Skittles unless they knock it off!

See? Easy.

Down The Rabbit Hole

So, suppose that someone responds with lethal force towards another because it was the only way to avoid experiencing extreme physical pain. Would you say that this constitutes strict proportionality? — TheHedoMinimalist

I see where you're going with that question. If one believes that deadly force is justified if the only way to avoid experiencing extreme physical pain, they cannot oppose abortion.

TheHedoMinimalist

↪Down The Rabbit Hole

Yep, that’s kinda where I was going with this question. Though, I figured this question would open up a larger discussion about the conditions under which self-defense is justified. I think you probably remember one of my past threads where I argued that murder doesn’t seem to be as bad as torture or rape so you can imagine that I also think that killing someone to avoid getting yourself tortured is more justifiable than killing someone to avoid getting yourself killed.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, your view in that murder thread wasn't too popular :smile: I'm 100% with you on prioritising suffering though.

Agent Smith

Self-defense is instinctive/hardwired/automatic/unwilled. Is it better to be in control (not flee, not fight, and not freeze) or to lose it (fight, flight, freezs) big time?

Quartus quid?

Book273

is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids — Outlander

Except that most often times, it does not. This statement is as accurate as saying "Driving a motor vehicle results in motor vehicle accidents" True; but also very inaccurate. If by driving my car to get a coffee (something entirely for pleasure) I get in an accident (a possibility, but not likely) I am not morally required to never fix the damage to my, or the other person's, car, simply based on my choice to drive that day. Sex can lead to pregnancy, and is, outside a laboratory, the only thing that does; however it certainly does not do so with each episode of intercourse. Far far from it. Same thing with driving. It is the only way to have a motor vehicle accident, granted, but every drive does not result in an accident; they are, relatively speaking, few and far between. I fix my car if I get in an accident. If I did not want to be pregnant, I would fix that too should it occur.

Abortion is self-defense

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions