Debunking Abortion as Self-Defense  

“Every pregnancy presents a risk of death for the mother; therefore, abortion must be legal as a form of self-defense.” 

While this argument seems strange at face value, it has proven shockingly effective against unprepared pro-lifers. Because of this, it has become immensely popular online and especially among young people. 

It seems a bit strange to most people to think that anyone would claim it is self-defense to brutally dismember or poison an innocent baby in the womb, but there are those who can present this argument well. 

The basic argument is as follows: 

1. Every pregnancy and childbirth presents danger to the health and even life of the mother. 

2. Every human being has the right to self-defense to protect themselves.  

3. The only way for a mother to protect herself from the dangers of an existing pregnancy and childbirth is to have an abortion. 

4. Abortion is a morally justifiable act of self-defense for the mother to protect herself.  

A well-versed abortion advocate will have a toolbelt full of hypotheticals to try to trip and trap the pro-life advocate ranging from normal scenarios to bizarre sleepwalker situations. It is important that we know how to refute this argument and not get lost in the weeds.  

Before we go further, let’s define self-defense: The morally and legally justified use of force to protect oneself or others from an imminent, unjust attack. 

Because the law is not always correct (see examples of legalized chattel slavery, child abuse, etc.) we will focus on the moral side of self-defense. No one would dispute that we all have the moral right to defend ourselves from an imminent, unjust attack. In fact, that is an essential human right. 

So, what is the issue with the pro-abortion argument?  

The use of violence to justify self-defense must be proportional.  

Between 2007-2016 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) studied the Pregnancy Related Morality Ratios (PRMR) in the United States and found that, “Over the period analyzed, the U.S. overall PRMR was 16.7 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 births.” That is around a 0.017% chance of dying because of a pregnancy-related complication.  

Here is a list of things that have a greater than 0.017% chance of killing you: 

1. Driving a car  

2. Accidentally Falling  

3. Choking on food 

4. Being struck by a vehicle while walking 

5. Medical errors 

If it is justifiable to kill an innocent child because of the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, what does that mean for every other part of life?  

We could spend all day thinking of comical examples of all the absurd situations where it would be considered justifiable to kill an innocent person because there is a 0.017% chance or higher that you may die. That is the standard that the pro-abortion advocate is attempting to set by claiming that it is self-defense to kill an unborn child.  

It is absurd to say that it is justifiable to violently kill an innocent baby just because their existence represents a 0.017% chance that you will die.

We do recognize that there may arise by medical necessity emergency circumstances in which the child must be separated from his or her mother to save the life of the mother. 

In such cases both mother and child should be treated as patients, and all reasonable measures should be taken to save both lives. If unfortunately, a situation arises where we do not yet have the medical advancements necessary to sustain the life of the child outside of the mother, the child should be provided with all available palliative care. The child’s death upon separation should be considered a medical tragedy, not an abortion as the intention was not to kill the child but to treat both patients.  

As we continue to expand our growing catalog of pro-life answers to pro-abortion arguments, please feel free to submit suggestions at info@lifeissues.org. We will happily refute any arguments that you need help with.