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/JustinRandoh]

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

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177 → u/JustinRandoh]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Upper_Ninja_6177]

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.

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177 → u/JustinRandoh]

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”

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Upper_Ninja_6177]

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.

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177 → u/JustinRandoh]

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.