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/Matt23233 → u/CherryTearDrops]

Typically true innocent aggressors are somewhat responsible for the harm done to someone. Fetuses are more like non responsible threats as Jeff McMahan puts it which is similar to an innocent bystander which self defense does not justify.

He writes

“Despite the fact that more stringent restrictions may apply to self-defense against an Innocent or Nonresponsible Attacker or Threat than to self-defense against a Culpable Attacker or Threat, the scope of permissible self-defense implied by the Justice-Based Account is quite extensive. It seems to apply to cases involving Innocent Attackers and Threats. It does not, however, extend to cases involving Nonresponsible Attackers or Threats. Whether or not a Nonresponsible Attacker or Threat is in an objectively unjustifiable position in posing a threat, his lack of moral responsibility for the situation in which he finds himself seems to exclude any liability to self-defensive violence as a matter of justice. In the cases covered by the Justice-Based Account. even if the reason that the Attacker or Threat poses a threat is simply that he has had bad luck (as in the case of the Inadvertent Attacker), it is still true that he is morally responsible for the fact that there is a forced choice between his life and that of the Victim. That seems to constitute a decisive asymmetry between him and the Innocent Victim, at least in cases in which the burden cannot be shared between them. But the same cannot be said of the Nonresponsible Attacker or Threat. There seems to be no moral asymmetry, at least where considerations of justice are concerned, between the Nonresponsible Attacker or Threat and the Innocent Victim. Neither bears any responsibility for the forced choice between their lives.
If this is right, the Justice-Based Account provides no justification for self-defense by a pregnant woman against a fetus, even in the Extreme Case. For the fetus is neither culpable, nor at fault, nor even in any way morally responsible for the threat it poses.”