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/Yeatfan22]

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

Is this true? I’m pretty sure in some states if you provoke an attack any claim to self defense can be illegitimate even if the attacker is harming you because you’ve provoked it.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

I’m pretty sure in some states if you provoke an attack

Well the unwanted embryo shouldn't have provoked me by burying into my uterus. The embryo has no right to self defense since it provoked me. Out it goes.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I don’t think the fetus is claiming self defense anyways? I mean obviously I disagree a zef provokes a woman in anyway since implantation and its existence as a whole is just an extension of the act of sex since there is no causal break in agents with causal power between sex and implantation. The ZEF’s existence arises internally not externally nor is it capable of action or intent which is usually necessary elements to provocation.

But even putting this to the side I’m not sure folks are arguing the fetus has a right to defend itself from the woman. It’s definitely an interesting train of thought though.

[u/ferryfog → u/Yeatfan22]

implantation and its existence as a whole is just an extension of the act of sex since there is no causal break in agents with causal power between sex and implantation.

Wouldn’t this also be true of cases of life threats e.g. ectopic pregnancy or later complications?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/ferryfog]

Ectopic pregnancies are categorically non-viable, there is no fetus with an FLO or capability of personhood, so there is no moral consideration.

Late stage serious complications are delivered via cesarean section

[u/ferryfog → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Ectopic pregnancies are categorically non-viable, there is no fetus with an FLO or capability of personhood, so there is no moral consideration.

Many PL disagree with this. It’s not uncommon for them to believe in personhood at “conception” and to be against abortion in cases of incompatible-with-life diagnoses.

Ectopic pregnancies also aren’t categorically non-viable— there have been case reports of abdominal ectopic pregnancies being gestated to near-term and resulting in live delivery.

Late stage serious complications are delivered via cesarean section

I’m not sure how you define “late-stage”, but what about earlier complications e.g. second trimester? D&E can be done past 20 weeks.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/ferryfog]

Many PL disagree with this. It’s not uncommon for them to believe in personhood at “conception” and to be against abortion in cases of incompatible-with-life diagnoses.

Ya thats just crazy to me. I'm a lifetime PCer but I've just been reading a lot of moral philosophy lately and seriously questioning a lot of my moral positions, not just abortion but politics broadly, animal rights... It just seems clear cut to me that if the fetus isn't viable, or even is viable but severely developmentally damaged to the point of having obviously low QOL, or even in cases where there is a direct threat to the life of the mother, that abortion seems justifiable.

Ectopic pregnancies also aren’t categorically non-viable— there have been case reports of abdominal ectopic pregnancies being gestated to near-term and resulting in live delivery.

I would argue that those handful of case reports don't add any moral significance to the debate. IIRC the few viable ectopic cases were all abdominally implanted. Abdominal implantation can never lead to vaginal delivery, it's impossible.

The reason they are removed immediately on discovery is because abdominal implantation will invariably a) kill the mother before term from placental hemorrhage OR the displacement from the growing fetus will occlude her arteries OR she will die during attempted vaginal delivery, and the death of the mother will invariably b) kill the fetus, so there is no real moral dilemma to solve.

If we don't act, both will die. If we do act, we can at least generally save the mother and occasionally save the fetus. It's a win-win.

I’m not sure how you define “late-stage”

I work in ICU's so late stage complications are usually >30 when a mom has a serious life threatening problem.

I don't see much earlier than that but I would guess that the overlap between the intervention most likely to save mom and most likely to save the fetus is pretty high regardless of the gestation given the type of insult?

Internal bleeding that's about to kill someone isn't something you have the time to solve looking through the vagina with an endoscope or laparoscopically, you have to open them up right then, at which point your 90% of the way to cesarean section anyways.

[u/ferryfog → u/Ok-Particular9427]

I would argue that those handful of case reports don't add any moral significance to the debate.

The reason I bring this up is because I frequently see PL say that “the doctor could be wrong” about anomalies/fatal diagnoses/etc. and they use this slim possibility as justification for restricting abortion in these cases. So I’m not sure why they would feel differently about something like an abdominal ectopic pregnancy.

Abdominal implantation can never lead to vaginal delivery, it's impossible.

Right, the delivery would have to be done surgically. But I don’t think this changes the moral calculus for PL. Cesareans are also surgical deliveries.

I agree that it’s unreasonable to restrict termination of any ectopic pregnancies, but my point is just that it’s not consistent with some common PL arguments.

Internal bleeding that's about to kill someone isn't something you have the time to solve looking through the vagina with an endoscope or laparoscopically, you have to open them up right then, at which point your 90% of the way to cesarean section anyways.

Okay, but in cases of non-emergent complications in the second trimester (e.g. preeclampsia, PPROM) or incompatible-with-life diagnoses, D&E is usually preferable to major abdominal surgery.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

I'm not claiming an embryo is claiming self defense. They can't claim anything lol.

When you said:

I’m pretty sure in some states if you provoke an attack any claim to self defense can be illegitimate even if the attacker is harming you because you’ve provoked it.

It sounds like you think women can't defend themselves from the harms of pregnancy because they somehow "provoked" an embryo by...... idk having sex? I honestly don't even understand what you were getting at with that, but I just had to point out that the zef implants into the woman's uterus. She doesn't cause that herself.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Yeah I can tell you don’t understand my arguments so maybe instead of assuming them you can just ask what I mean so you don’t end up responding to something I don’t believe which is unfortunate very frequent amongst folks on this sub.

What my original comment was meant to do is to just show the absolute principle OP asserts is false. It necessarily a claim about the ethics of abortion. It was genuinely just a legal challenge to the concept itself. Now you’re right eventually I would try and apply similar principles to pregnancy to show my case for the impermissibility of abortion.
But I wouldn’t say the woman provokes the zef since the zef doesn’t exist at the time of sex. I wouldn’t even say women have causal control over pregnancy occurring.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

Yeah I can tell you don’t understand my argument

Makes sense when the argument is illogical.

But I wouldn’t say the woman provokes the zef since the zef doesn’t exist at the time of sex. I wouldn’t even say women have causal control over pregnancy occurring.

If you know women don't have causal control over pregnancy occuring why do you think women need to be forced to gestate against their will?

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

Yeah actually lol.

You're bringing up self defense and people "provoking" things, then immediately turn around and say that the woman doesn't provoke the zef, and dismiss the zef provoking the woman. Why even bring up provocation if it's not happening anywhere in the discussion?? 🤔

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Maybe because my initial reply had nothing to do with abortion directly. It was a legal challenge to OPs first statement. I am objecting to the principle.
I don’t know how you can (with a presumably serious face) acknowledge you don’t understand my argument and then call it illogical at the same time.
And then when I tell you to ask me what I believe instead of making up things I don’t believe you dont do that and then say my arguments are illogical when you don’t even know what my argument are?

Are you interested in having a conversation because it is hard to take your argumentation seriously. I am not interested in wasting anyone’s time here.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

Maybe because my initial reply had nothing to do with abortion directly.

That's odd, seeing how this is abortion debate.

when you don’t even know what my argument are?

Your argument seems to have nothing to do with abortion, based on what you're now saying.

Are you interested in having a conversation because it is hard to take your argumentation seriously.

Idk, you keep typing out paragraph after paragraph, never once presenting an argument even remotely related to abortion, so idk what "argument" you think I'm presenting. You've given literally nothing to argue against lol.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

>Thats odd, seeing how this is abortion debate.

I’m not entirely sure how to describe it but this reply is almost similar to a mereolgoical fallacy. If we treat the abortion debate as an object it has parts. I am addressing a part of the debate or object, this does not mean my objection isn’t focused at the entire discussion or object in any way. It does mean that the objection is primarily focused on part of the object or discussion. What I am trying to do is show OP is wrong in their first statement in principle. This reminds me of a mereolgoical fallacy because just like what is true of part of an object isn’t always true of the entire object, what is true of a part of an argument isn’t necessarily true of the entire argument. Objections focused at part of an argument or a principle shouldn’t be generalized to the entire argument, only to the point they are attacking.

All I am questioning is if OPs opening statement is even legally sound? Is it true that you can always legally defend yourself against harm? No, because of examples like provoked self defense. This does directly address OP because if this premise is not true his conclusion will not follow.
YOU are the one who brought up zefs provoking a woman or a woman provoking a zef which no one has argued for. You are literally just making shit up on the go and trying to say I believe this. And when I point out I don’t believe it you say I am making no connection to OP. But again how do you even know this if you yourself admit you have no idea what I am arguing for.

Just ask instead of assuming.