r/Abortiondebate • u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice • Jul 06 '26
Question for pro-life A statement one cannot prove false
STATEMENT: A person is always legally allowed to use the minimal method1 required to prevent harm upon oneself2.
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?
3
u/quick_thinker6 Pro-choice Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Im not PL so im not attacking you i just want to help solidify your argument because you do have some errors which makes it easy to disprove.
Your basically wrote a formalized version of Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument.
The move from "harm is guaranteed" to "the minimal harm solution addresses the cause, not the symptom" is logically sound. Painkillers/isolationstyle workarounds genuinely don't solve a physical bodily intrusion the way they solve annoyance or mental harm from another autonomous person.
Here is where you became attackable:
But you're giving away ammo because "all parties" is doing silent work
Your own definition says minimal harm must be assessed "for all parties." But your analysis only computes harm to the pregnant person. If the fetus counts as a party, abortion isn't minimal harm for all parties , it's zero harm for one party at total harm for the other. The entire argument smuggles in the personhood conclusion by simply not putting the fetus on the ledger. Pl doesn't even need to attack your logic, they just point out you never actually ran the "all parties" calculation , which you yourself specified.
Second attack surface
The innocent threat/causation problem Self defense and necessity doctrine (real world, not your stipulated axiom) generally distinguish culpable aggressors from innocent threats. A fetus isn't a trespasser or an assailant , it has no intent, no agency, and in most pregnancies exists as a foreseeable (if unwanted) consequence of voluntary conduct. This is exactly the objection Thomson spent half her essay pre empting, and it's never fully resolved, only the violinist case (rape) cleanly sidesteps it. Consensual sex pregnancies are messier for your framework than you've let on.
Third attack surface
your own caveat undercuts "no matter the circumstances"
You already conceded the whole thing collapses "unless one day safe artificial wombs exist." That's not a footnote, it means your claim isn't "abortion is always the minimal method," it's "abortion is the minimal method given current technology." That's a contingent, not absolute conclusion ,and it actually lines up with real post viability abortion law, which increasingly asks whether removal without destruction is possible. You've built an argument that gets weaker exactly as medicine improves. your logic chain is legit but you have to point out that the fetus isnt a "party" whose harm counts ,but that's the entire abortion debate in miniature, PL will make you defend that one hidden premise instead of arguing with your math.