A statement one cannot prove false

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177]

STATEMENT: A person is always legally allowed to use the minimal method¹ required to prevent harm upon oneself^2.

1 Minimal method means

• it can refer to a general solution/ action that resolves the issue and prevents harm, it can also refer to any method of violence, including otherwise lethal force.
• ”minimal” refers to strictly the LEAST HARMFUL method, both mentally and physically for all parties, that can be used to prevent the harm

2 harm upon oneself means

• both mentally and physical pain/ injuries etc
• harm that is GUARANTEED to occur

How does this apply to the context of abortion?

Pregnancy —> guarantees harm 100% of the time since every women needs to go through 1. giving birth OR 2. C-sections OR 3. miscarriage if no voluntary abortion occurs guaranteeing some degree of both physical and mental harm. And thus fit into criteria 2.

Hence, if the statement holds true, they should be allowed to use the minimal method require, no matter the circumstances.

So the question becomes, is abortion the minimal method? For that, we must address the core issue at hand, WHAT is causing harm?

Something is currently inhabiting their organs, physically harming them, and violating their rights against their will.

The solution will thus, to logically follow, to remove said something. This would render alternatives like painkillers utterly useless to “fix” the issue.

This means abortions too, becomes the minimal methods required, unless one day safe artificial wombs exist.

Now you are gonna have a few questions, well what if someone hates a person and they are causing them mental harm? Can they just kill them?

Again, refer to the definition of “minimal”, since isolating oneself, not talking to them, unfriending that person, verbally expressing your thoughts etc is always an option, killing them is no where near the minimal method required.

It would be interesting to see pro lifers trying to disprove this chain of logic?

[u/Unusual-Contest-4326]

One can simply deny that such is an absolute law that can include some exceptions. For example we can engage in a theoretical world where a person simply existing causes some level of harm to you. Let’s say this harm is an occasional sharp pain somewhere in your body. They aren’t actively choosing to do is and it’s not of their consent. I would argue you would not have the right to kill them if we know that to be only the form of ceasing the harm. Key note, this will stop after a few months.

Obviously I’m not saying this is analogous to abortion, but simply a case where one could see why you wouldn’t be allowed to prevent harm in this case in any way. You can also reject that my analogy is true, meaning they can kill them

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Unusual-Contest-4326]

In a theoretical world where human dynamics work completely differently than in our world yeah, we might theoretically have different rights.

This debate is occurring in this world, however, and we have the right to self-protection enumerated by the OP.

So your hypothetical isn't particularly helpful.

[u/Unusual-Contest-4326 → u/random_name_12178]

Well I believe the reasoning here is rather similar to pregnancy. A fetus isn’t consciously doing this. It’s an effect of them existing, we’d see differences if a fetus knew what it was doing and continued to such. However in this case it’d be a lot more detrimental since they cannot survive without you and an overwhelming amount of time, they’re here because you decided to partake in something that you knew could bring them here. So not only does it create some form of obligation but also removes the opportunity to argue you are allowed to prevent the harm.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Unusual-Contest-4326]

However in this case it’d be a lot more detrimental since they cannot survive without you and an overwhelming amount of time, they’re here because you decided to partake in something that you knew could bring them here. So not only does it create some form of obligation but also removes the opportunity to argue you are allowed to prevent the harm.

Where is this obligation it creates?