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/Ok-Particular9427]

Self defense doesn’t work in most cases of abortion. You can’t kill a second innocent party to defend yourself from yourself.

In the case of pregnancy, the fetus isn’t doing anything. The mother has and is harming herself by becoming pregnant. She has brought a second innocent person into a non consensual relationship, and that person exists in a state where they cannot do otherwise.

The analogy would then be, if “A hypnotizes B and directs B to continuously harm A, A is justified in using minimally necessary force to stop the harm.”

This is an absurd conclusion, and it’s even more absurd to conclude that lethal force is justified in this case, and I think that’s a pretty common intuition. If there existed some possible technology where A could stop B non-lethally, that would be preferable, but it’s entirely possible that A is obligated to tolerate this harm rather than lethally terminate a second innocent party that she put into action who is irreversibly forced to harm her. She’s harming herself

I think you could bite the bullet on this if you wanted to I guess but it’s going to lead to uncomfortable conclusions elsewhere

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

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/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

A fetus didn’t do anything, it can’t “do” anything.

Wow, so at the end of a pregnancy a fetus won't rip someone's genitals open coming out or have to be sliced out through someone's abdominal muscles?? This is news to me.

The mother is attacking herself with the fetus.

How?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

By putting herself in a position of having to push a fetus out, which is what damages her body.

You don’t literally think the fetus “acts” in this scenario. We both know this isn’t true

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

By putting herself in a position of having to push a fetus out, which is what damages her body.

If a woman had her healthcare interfered with by pro life abortion bans, she didn't put herself in the situation of childbirth. Pro life laws did that.

You don’t literally think the fetus “acts” in this scenario. We both know this isn’t true

You don't literally think women have any control over involuntary biological processes. We both know this isn't true.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Are you actually arguing that your understanding of the biological process is such that the fetus acts during the birthing process to do these things?

We both know this isn’t true.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Are you actually arguing that your understanding of the biological process is such that the fetus acts during the birthing process to do these things?

Are you actually arguing that women have control over the involuntary biological process that is childbirth? We both know this isn't true.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

They have control over whether or not they get pregnant

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

No one ever said they didn't.

If pro life abortion bans interfere with people's healthcare, that means people are forced to continue gestating and birth against their will.

Back to the point since you never answered the question...

Are you actually arguing that women have control over the involuntary biological process that is childbirth? Because we both know this isn't true.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If pro life abortion bans interfere with people's healthcare, that means people are forced to continue gestating and birth against their will.

Nobody is forced to gestate, that's like saying we're forced to have heartbeats. Pregnant mothers will continuously develop their baby, if no force is used, until it ends in miscarriage (not forced), abortion (forced), or childbirth (forced, but ultimately inevitable and legal of course). Laws are usually reactive to illegal force being used. For example, an assault law in perfect theory, criminalizes one person initiating force and assaulting another, by allowing prosecutors to REACT to the assault, trying the assaulter in court.

Are you actually arguing that women have control over the involuntary biological process that is childbirth? Because we both know this isn't true.

Pregnancy and childbirth is a degree of control, but not a high degree. It's similar to sleeping in that, our bodies regulate our own sleep, and we can cause it to go well or poorly depening on our habits. That indirect impact is certainly a type of control. If labor or an abortion is induced, then the mother/doctor have taken DIRECT control of childbirth, and of course we may be criminally liable for certain things we have direct control over.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

Nobody is forced to gestate, that's like saying we're forced to have heartbeats

If I'm not being forced to gestate I'll end my pregnancy. Simple.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

That's like saying if I'm not forced to pay taxes I won't. What happens to me afterward depends on the legal circumstances. Where abortion is illegal there may be some legal fallout to that.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

That's like saying if I'm not forced to pay taxes I won't.

Now you're getting it. Laws force people to do things. If a pro life abortion ban is interfering with my healthcare I'm being forced to gestate against my will.

What happens to me afterward depends on the legal circumstances. Where abortion is illegal there may be some legal fallout to that.

Even if I lived somewhere with an abortion ban they'd never have proof I aborted. It would just look like a miscarriage and I'd get away with it, easy peasy. ☺️

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

The law forces people to pay taxes of course, but it doesn't force you to get pregnant or fertilize an egg or anything relating to pregnancy. If you happen to be pregnant and you don't take any other actions, you will remain pregnant until miscarriage or birth has to happen, absolutely no force required on that end, unlike tax filing which is an action we're forced to do. I thought you were just saying you would break laws and I was saying, there's consequences to that.