Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40741313›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2025

A Defense of Abortion on the Basis of Self-defense.

Timothy Kirschenheiter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Timothy KirschenheiterDepartment of Philosophy, Oakland University, Rochester, MI USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0137-5288

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

I offer a positive argument in defense of the moral permissibility of abortion that relies on the moral concept of self-defense. I argue that given the lack of proportional self-defense options in pregnancy, a pregnant woman is morally permitted to procure a self-defensive abortion so long as the risks/burdens of her pregnancy and childbirth reach a sufficiently high threshold of seriousness. I then argue that even standard pregnancies reach this threshold, because of the expected physical and nonphysical risks/burdens imposed. Finally, I consider three objections-an objection based on the risks/burdens of abortion, an objection based on the fetus's status as an innocent aggressor, and an objection based on the pregnant woman's moral responsibility for the creation of the fetus.

Indexed as

AbortionPersonhoodPregnancySelf-defense

Identifiers

PMID40741313
PMCPMC12304405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.