ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the pro-life position conflicts with the best non-consequentialist theory of killing: forfeiture theory. The forfeiture theory posits a loss of a right precisely where the narrow- content theory posits a boundary to the right. It is a better account of individual defense than competitor theories, such as narrow scope theory, permissible infringement, and consent theory. Forfeiture theories vary in terms of whether in order to forfeit a right, an attacker must be blameworthy for an attack or morally responsible for putting another at risk. The three theories: override, forfeiture, and narrow scope, exhaust what can happen to an attacker's right with regard to a just defender. If forfeiture is the best of the three theories and if all three work the same way with regard to abortion- and other killing-related cases, then the pro-lifer is stuck with it.
