Does a woman's right to self-defence outweigh a foetus' right to life? Venkatesh Sah
Introduction
The first step in my endeavour to formulate a discourse on the nature of ‘a woman’s right to self defence' and that of the ‘rights of the foetus' will be to establish certain definition, characteristics, premises and distinctions vital to this dialogue bearing in mind that these definitions have been variously interpreted in the past. Self defence as per the Oxford English dictionary is quoted to as being, ‘the defence of one’s person or interests, especially through the use of physical force…’ . A foetus is defined as, “an…show more content… This distinction has been made by John Locke quite roughly and is as follows, a human being is a biological concept while person is a psychological (and forensic) concept. This leads to the need for establishing the prerequisites for possessing personhood. Mary Ann Warren in her work, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion suggests the following ‘most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity’ in the moral sense, are’: (i) consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;(ii) reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); (iii) self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); (iv) the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; (v) the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or…show more content… Since claiming self defence, otherwise does not defend that who instigated the conflict. The most obvious rebuttal to this is presenting the notion of a lack of intent,i.e, unwanted pregnancy, intoxication, etc. However, consensual sex can be equated with a game of poker, the liability of the loss is on the person who indulged in the activity irrespective of the intent to win or lose. Having said that I must acknowledge that this case in not as black and white as I have shown it to be. The problem in my view lies in the nature and location of foetus. A foetus is a living being inside a living being (the pregnant woman), it is connected (through the umbilical cord) to the body of the host and biologically affects it’s host. It is fed by the body of the host much like parasite, even though, it is a part of the host’s body yet a separate being.
In the instance where the foetus poses the host terminal danger whose rights must be deferred? Both parties involved in this conflict have the right to life, it is certain in the given circumstances that either one of their rights will be violated. The answer to this question will be a multi-pronged
