If I accidently by a blow make a man insane and that insane man afterward tries to kill me, I or my protector may permit his death to save my life. If I maliciously make a man insane and he afterward tries to kill me, may I or my protector kill him in my defence? Some may say that I may not because I have lost all juridic superiority over the madman as a consequence of my sin against him. That position, however, does not seem to be correct. If it is correct, parity makes the assertion true that the foetus in the case supposed above may not be indirectly {38} killed to save the mother. If it is not true, the foetus may be indirectly destroyed. Does my sin against the insane man give him a right to kill me? By no means. Nothing but defence of life or its equivalent gives any private individual the right to kill another. The man might kill me before this aggression of mine, in defence of his sanity, but after the fact such a killing would be mere revenge, or an _actus hominis_, not a right. The woman, we suppose, has maliciously put the foetus in its position of material aggressor, but has the foetus the right to kill her? No; the foetus is an individual not acting in self-defence, it is merely growing. Has the woman or the surgeon, her protector, the right to permit the death of the foetus to defend the woman's life? I think they have, because the foetus here also is, from its unnatural position, a materially unjust aggressor. But, you say, this is a vicious circle. You justify the permitted death of the foetus in Case I. because it is a materially unjust aggressor, and it is a materially unjust aggressor because it is in an unnatural position where it has no right to be; but in the present case the mother put it in the unnatural position, and it therefore has a right to be where it is. No: the consequence does not follow. The fact that the mother put the foetus in its unnatural position does not give the foetus a _right_ to be in that position, although it constitutes a ground for her punishment by proper authority. You object again, if this woman has a right to permit the death of the foetus to save her own life, how may she be punished for that death? She will not be punished for the actual coeliotomy which indirectly caused the death of the foetus, but she will be punished for the sin of putting that child in a position in which it had to be killed. This seems to be a distinction without a difference. As far as the mother is concerned, _transeat _; but it is a real distinction as far as the surgeon is concerned. If the woman's condition is a result of accidental infection before or after marriage, the case goes into the class of those discussed above, and operation is justifiable. If her infection comes after her marriage adulterously, her {39} sin is the greater, but the operation is justifiable for the reasons which were given in the case of culpable infection before marriage.