The legal right for medical professionals not having to participate in (non-life threatening) terminations for reasons of conscience, i.e. conscientious objection to abortion, is a commonly stipulated medical professionals’ right in Europe. I suggest it is not a coincidence that out of the five European countries currently not granting that right, three are Nordic welfare states: Sweden, Iceland and Finland whose parliament only recently rejected by landslide a citizens’ initiative for the right for conscientious objection to abortion to be protected by law. Yet there remains a consensus that abortion should be legal. Whose right and whose duty is abortion anyway?
By using the method of reflective equilibrium, I analyze six arguments I have identified to be universally used for defending medical professionals’ right to conscientiously object abortion, and refuse them all as ethically unsustainable. The most urgent dilemma is that they are in fact not arguments for conscientious objection but arguments against abortion per se. I wish to offer a feminist account on reverence of life in the public health context. I also discuss the effects abortion law has on women’s (basic) rights and citizenship. On the latter note, I wish to inquire does the Nordic welfare state model/sociodemocratic ideology have something unique to offer in terms of equality, justice, public interest and public goods.
