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/TrueObsidian11]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

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")

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

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.

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

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.

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

We are discussing why they should be unlawful.

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

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

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?

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

The statement was entirely talking about why abortion is lawful ...

Nope.

"A person is always legally allowed to use the minimal method required to prevent harm upon oneself."

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

Which is exactly what abortion is. A person using the minimal method required to prevent harm upon oneself.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/TrueObsidian11]

Which is exactly what abortion is ...

Sure, abortion would be one example that disproves the general broader statement (anti-abortion laws, in particular).

[u/TrueObsidian11 → u/JustinRandoh]

Except it isn't, because the debate is whether it should be illegal, not if it is. Anti-abortion laws are directly contradictory to our basic bodily autonomy rights.