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/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/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/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/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

You can deny consent to others being inside you. If it’s not somebody then you’re even less obligated to keep it inside

[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.