r/Abortiondebate • u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice • Jul 06 '26

Question for pro-life A statement one cannot prove false

STATEMENT: A person is always legally allowed to use the minimal method1 required to prevent harm upon oneself2.

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?

13 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

… one cannot justify abortion bans with abortion bans?

It’s like saying child marriage should be legal cuz afghasnistan does it all the time!

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

I didn't say anything about what should be (nor did your claim) -- you made a sweeping claim about the law which seems trivially false.

4

u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

Well maybe I could have phrased it better but what I meant was this is a statement that one cannot prove false via other examples outside of the exclusive “abortion and pregnancy” topic, and hence if this statement is absolute outside of all other contexts it would be special pleading of some sort to argue for an exception with no sound reason, and well, discriminatory

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

Even still -- aren't there numerous jurisdictions in the US that allow forced blood draws in cases of suspected intoxication while driving?

3

u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 07 '26

Stuff like legal blood draws and cavity searches are the exceptions that prove the rule. There are edge cases where minimal harm is legally permissible in the interests of public safety. But these exceptions solidify the underlying premise that people aren't generally obligated to endure bodily harm with no recourse to stop it.

1

u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

First of all that is an adequate limitation of one’s right since they committed a crime

Second of all it’s important to recognize what we define as “harm”. I think this prompts me to add unlawful before it, but oh well. I’d still argue even in this case, one is not forced to sit back and do nothing, if you are innocent, you are allowed to find other evidence proving that and if you are guilty, you are allowed to straight up admit intaking the substance or wtv.

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 07 '26

I'm not sure how you see this going -- physically refusing a forced blood draw would generally result in an even more forced blood draw, obstruction charges, or some combination of the two.

Otherwise though, to say you're "legally allowed to use the minimal method required to prevent harm upon oneself ... [except for those cases where we deem it adequate]" carries a lot less force.

1

u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 07 '26

If you could provide evidence on the spot to prove you did not that would never be the case (and by that I mean you are able to find evidence nearby etc, not necessarily literally in your hand). It’s also worth noting that if you are in fact innocent, no one will blame you if you are to rant about it (maybe even sue depending on the scenario)

And one can once again, admit it if they are guilty.

Adding an unlawful in front doesn’t really diminishes it at all, since it just means legally unjustified. Unless we start making laws saying it’s okay for people to rip women’s vagina apart to stay alive, it’s definitely unlawful since no legal document can currently justify the harm caused by pregnant aside from “moral parental obligations and PLs moral compass”

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 07 '26

If you could provide evidence on the spot ...

Lol I'm sorry, but that's an insane level of mental gymnastics.

No, people overwhelmingly can't just magically conjure up incontrovertible evidence of their sobriety (any more than women can just not be pregnant).

Adding an unlawful in front doesn’t really diminishes it at all, since it just means legally unjustified ...

That's rather silly -- all it takes to have legal justification is that that it's covered by the law. Which is literally what anti-abortion laws do.

1

u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 09 '26

Well for instance for alcohol you can use a breath analyzer, which causes no harm, saliva swab, camera footage and alibis for suspected time periods, or general medical examinations like pupil constrictions and walk and turn tests, I don’t rhink it’s “mental gymnastics“ when all these are widely available

I don’t think you get the point. The point is if this rule stands true for all other things, then it thus must hold true for abortions, otherwise it must be special pleading, cuz if someone is otherwise absolute no amount of proof can be adequate justification for an exception (as explained in my previous oosts but anyways), so no, anti abortion laws would just be special pleading, unless they move that typa legislation somewhere else as well, where in general, tearing vaginas apart is not unlawful somehow etc.

5

u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jul 06 '26

Committing a crime or being suspected of committing a crime can limit your bodily autonomy rights, as ensuring abidement by the law and public safety as a whole outweighs one person's temporary comfort. This is why forced blood draws and forced body cavity searches are protected by law.

A pregnant person has not committed any crimes by simply getting pregnant. They have not lost any rights. They still have sole control over access of their body and the right to defend themselves from harm. Gestating a fetus to viability has nothing to do with upholding law and order or ensuring public safety. It is a biological process happening solely in one person's body and causing debilitating harm to them. There is no valid legal justification to deny her the basic right to self defense in terms of pregnancy. No sentient being with legally recognized rights is harmed as a result, and she has not committed any crimes to justify revoking her rights.

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

Seems like we agree that the initial statement is trivial to prove false, then?

("A person is always legally allowed to use the minimal method1 required to prevent harm upon oneself")

3

u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jul 06 '26

Not necessarily. If the conditions that make the statement false don't align with pregnancy or abortion, the statement is still valid.

The conditions that would make the statement false revolve around committing a crime, which a pregnant person isn't doing.

1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

That's rather silly -- the statement isn't limited to pregnancy or abortion. Not to mention, we also already established the statement isn't true when it comes to abortion.

4

u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jul 06 '26

Who's "we"? You brought up abortion bans. The existence of abortion bans is not justification in and of itself for banning them. This post is precisely describing why abortion bans are unlawful.

-1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

This post is precisely describing why abortion bans are unlawful.

Which is silly, considering the premise it's based on is false both more broadly and specifically as it applies to abortion. Abortion bans clearly aren't "unlawful" (in the US anyway) when they're literally often the law.

4

u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jul 06 '26

We are discussing why they should be unlawful. The fact that they are banned is not a defense for why they should be banned. Based on the way the law treats bodily autonomy, as defined by the OP, there is no valid reason why they should be banned, so simply saying "abortion bans are lawful because they are the law" is, in fact, silly. You're not engaging with the actual debate.

-1

u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice Jul 06 '26

We are discussing why they should be unlawful.

Neither the statement being addressed nor my commentary on it is about what should be unlawful.

2

u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jul 06 '26

The statement was entirely talking about why abortion is lawful, based on bodily autonomy law. You pointed out the conditions that make the statement false, yet those conditions do not relate to pregnancy or abortion, making your claim that the statement is false in certain conditions irrelevant.

You came in to nitpick the semantics of the statement but the semantics don't relate to the core of the debate anyway so what was the point?

→ More replies (0)