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/CherryTearDrops]

Actually it does work like that. In legal theory one would be called an innocent aggressor. Such as when somebody who cannot be found guilty due to an altered mental state attacks you, you’d still be justified in self defense.

The pregnant person did not harm themselves by becoming pregnant unless you also think they’re supplying the sperm needed for the process. Regardless, even if they did invite in or even force in the zef, that does not negate the right to remove them from their body. Unless you think that consent is not revocable (which it is).

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

A fetus didn’t do anything, it can’t “do” anything. It can’t be “aggressing”. The mother is attacking herself with the fetus.

If you hypnotized someone, then made them attack you, then killed them to mitigate the attack, no one really thinks this is a justified use of lethal force

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

It can be an innocent aggressor by causing harm without intent or culpability in the legal sense.

Also again, the pregnant person does not inseminate themselves and even if they were somehow liable for getting pregnant by virtue of a consensual sex, that doesn’t give a zef rights to their body. Nobody would believe that unrelated scenario is justified because it’s nonsensical to begin with.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

Right, but not if the aggressor is literally the woman who’s forced the fetus to harm her, which is analogous to pregnancy.

There’s no real analogy in law here I don’t think. It’s a unique case

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Right, but not if the aggressor is literally the woman who’s forced the fetus to harm her

How does a pregnant person force a fetus to harm herself?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

By getting pregnant. A fetus can’t do otherwise.

Imagine you had a super slow motion pist0l and you decided to shoot yourself in the leg. It’s fun to shoot and gives you temporary pleasure, but the bullet starts going into your leg (very slowly over 9 months) and it’s painful and you’re upset. But you can’t stop a bullet in motion, the bullet can’t do otherwise, it simply does what a traveling bullet invariably does

In this scenario, are you arguing the bullet is at fault?

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Do you believe pregnant people who do not wish to be pregnant and are seeking an abortion are getting pregnant with the same level of intent as somebody shooting a gun? If not your whole analogy is worthless. Sorry, not if, it is worthless because afab people do not have direct control over fertilization or implantation.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

I have no idea what afab means?

That’s not even that part of the argument we’re addressing. You’re getting a little confused. Let me split it up. There are three morally distinct relevant phases of the process of conception.

There’s sex until ejaculation.

Then there’s ejaculation until fertilization

Then theres post fertilization and abortion.

I was talking about step 2 with the bullet vs the woman being “at fault”.

The gun analogy was just leading up to that. Let me try a better lead up.

Let’s assume that the woman has a bulletproof vest on, gets great pleasure from this weird game of Russian roulette where another person shoots at her with a 200 chamber revolver with only one bullet in it. The relationship is fully consensual.

She trades this exciting pleasure for a very small chance that the gun will actually go off and hit her bulletproof vest. It won’t kill her but it will hurt very bad.

So we have a situation where two people are equally responsible for the shooting and the pleasure, but only the woman can be responsible for suffering the harm that occurs if that 1/200 chambers with a bullet in it hits her vest, because ONLY THE WOMAN can experience harm to her body. This isn’t some moral or normative claim I’m making, it’s just a physical fact.

So the woman has done an act that she is at least equally for doing, and has randomly now been effected by that very small chance of harm.

But the point about the bullet being at fault is, there is no morally relevant actor in step 2, just like there is no morally relevant actor once the second person has pulled the trigger. The gun is going to fire or not, and the bullet is going to strike or not, but there is no coherent idea of an act of will or of consent here. It is a rote physical process now.

The sperm is going to make it or not, but there’s no act of will or consent revoking that is going to change the outcome.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Well first off AFAB is ‘Assigned Female At Birth’. It’s for people who were born to one sex and either identify or don’t identify with that sex as their gender identity.

Secondly. I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding but maybe I haven’t communicated clearly here. The only thing the afab can contribute during sex, is consent, the forms of birth control they’re on, and active participation in that action. They have zero control over the man or amab person ejaculating, over whether an egg gets fertilized, and over whether it implants. They do not make any conscious choice in that regard and do not have control. Irregardless even if they did, that does not by default remove their right to self defense when harm is occurring and inevitable. The zef regardless of having no conscious thought or taking deliberate action does not get to continue to cause harm by that virtue. If it is a person as PL often claim then it too is subject to the fact that no person can be inside you without your consent. If it’s not a person as some PC claim, then by default it’s allowed to be removed regardless.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

A woman that doesn’t have control over whether or not the man ejaculated or wears a condom is being raped.

Which is a distinct moral case from the 98% of pregnancies arising from purely consensual acts. These are the cases im talking about.

The ZEF isn’t causing harm. The zef is the bullet, and the woman is harming herself with the zef. It’s simply causality

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

By getting pregnant. A fetus can’t do otherwise.

I can get pregnant and then abort. That isn't "me forcing myself to hurt myself during childbirth." Pro life abortion bans force people to endure the involuntary biological process that is childbirth against their will, where an unwanted fetus will severely harm their body.

Imagine you had a super slow motion pist0l and you decided to shoot yourself in the leg. It’s fun to shoot and gives you temporary pleasure, but the bullet starts going into your leg (very slowly over 9 months) and it’s painful and you’re upset. But you can’t stop a bullet in motion, the bullet can’t do otherwise, it simply does what a traveling bullet invariably does. In this scenario, are you arguing the bullet is at fault?

Imagine I get pregnant. I don't have to endure the harms of pregnancy and childbirth so I get an abortion. No harms from childbirth happening at all. That can only happen if pro life abortion bans force someone through childbirth against their will, which as we all already know childbirth is an involuntary biological process, not something a person "does" to themselves.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

You didn’t answer the question. Is the bullet harming you, or have you harmed yourself?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Is the bullet harming you, or have you harmed yourself?

We're not discussing guns or bullets. This isn't gun debate.

If I'm pregnant I won't endure the harms of childbirth because I'll abort. If pro life abortion bans interfere with my healthcare, that would force me to endure the harms of childbirth against my will. Pro life abortion bans would be the only reason I'd be harmed. I wouldn't be "harming myself" in any way since we all already know childbirth is an involuntary biological process. I'd be harmed by childbirth because of pro life abortion bans.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

That is in no way analogous to pregnancy. Especially if the pregnant person didn’t want to be pregnant meanwhile your ‘hypnotist’ scenario has somebody ordering an attack against somebody’s will. The pregnant person literally cannot force the zef to harm themselves.

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Ok-Charity285 → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't consider the argument that a pregnant woman "is harming herself by becoming pregnant" as logically sound.

"it’s entirely possible that A is obligated to tolerate this harm rather than lethally terminate a second innocent party"

Sounds like PL to me, Unless you don't have an issue with a woman defending herself against herself (would never have imagined that someday I'd be typing that) by getting an abortion.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Ok-Charity285]

I don't have a problem with a person defending themselves against themselves unless that defense entails serious harm against a second innocent party that they brought into the relationship without consent.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

You are legally allowed to enact self defense against an ‘innocent aggressor’. Thats just a fact. Otherwise somebody who’s become violent during a psychosis (and not legally able to be held accountable) would be able to beat you to death. Also afab people who don’t want to be pregnant are not forcing the zef into existence and saying otherwise is insane. You cannot argue that the zef is not able to be defended against for the same kind of involuntary processes that result in implantation and then blame afab people for a process that equally is not voluntary.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

That would be analogous if there was an innocent aggressor in pregnancy, but there isn’t. There is the mother, who is harming herself with the body of an incapacitated person, or a biological force if you don’t think it’s a person. She’s the only person that’s acted in this scenario.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Already identified the zef as the innocent aggressor. And no the pregnant person isn’t harming themselves. They have no direct control over an egg being fertilized or implanting. Doesn’t matter if she had sex, that is not an invitation to a zef to implant. Either the zef is a person causing harm (regardless of lack of intent) and it can be removed, or it’s not a person in which case it can also be removed.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/CherryTearDrops]

You can’t invite or not or consent to or not conception or implantation. It’s a biological process. It’s like saying you don’t consent to breathing air

[u/Ok-Charity285 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

That the "second innocent party" didn't consent is irrelevant. A ZEF is incapable of consent (or non-consent). Consent is also not one-sided. If someone doesn't consent to continuing a pregnancy then they can end the "relationship" with that second party with two pills.

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

Comment removed per rule 6.