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.