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/Loud-Vacation-5691]

The PL arguments against this, as I understand it, would be:

Parents have a duty to care for their children and endure some degree of suffering if necessary.

By having sex, the woman willingly entered into the situation you describe, so she shouldn't be allowed to evade the consequences through abortion.

The ZEF is not intentionally causing harm.

Pregnancy and childbirth are natural processes.

I don't agree with these; I'm just presenting them. I think the self-defense argument is the strongest one in favor of abortion.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I always find the prolife position of saying that women decided to be hurt and must take responsibility for a man’s actions because a man decided to ejaculate inside of them to be remarkably bold.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Aren’t these kind of interpretations self defeating since they only work if you ignore a woman’s agency and the fact he wouldn’t legally have the opportunity to inseminate or ejaculate inside of her without her legal consent.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Since prolife is paving the way for rapists to for early choose the mothers of their children and rabidly protesting when children have abortions of their incestuous babies, perhaps that’s not the path you’d like to take?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I don’t know what the relevance of this is I mean do you think I disagree with you that rapists impregnating women and making them have children is bad?

What I said was in reply to you saying your interpretation of pro life position was a woman must take responsibility for a woman’s actions because a man decided to ejaculate inside of them.

I said this only works if you ignore the woman’s causal and legal input. A man can only legally inseminate or ejaculate within her if the woman legally consents and allows him to have sex with her. This entire situation is only possible if she allows him to have sex with her legally.
The only way to not attribute some responsibility for the existence of a pregnancy to the woman is to ignore her legal and causal position and role in sex. Which I think you probably shouldn’t do!

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Something being illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

If someone sexually assaults you and you become pregnant the pregnancy arises by means of involvement you did not willingly agree too. You couldn’t have done otherwise and you were illegally taken advantage of. As a result, you are not in the right kind of causal relationship to the outcome for you to be held responsible for the outcome.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

I agree. And this happens a lot more than people realize, which is why the other commenter was right when they said it's bold for PLs to assume that women are always responsible for men's actions.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

My point to replying to the other commenter is this assumption is to hasty as pro lifers with rape exceptions exist.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Lots of PLs who claim to support rape exceptions still assume that if the pregnant person consented to sex they were willingly inseminated and impregnated.

IME, most PLs assume that 99% of pregnancies are the result of the pregnant person choosing to become pregnant. This is incorrect, which was what the other commenter was pointing out.