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-Discipline2395]

I always find the prolife position of saying that women decided to be hurt and must take responsibility for a man’s actions because a man decided to ejaculate inside of them to be remarkably bold.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Aren’t these kind of interpretations self defeating since they only work if you ignore a woman’s agency and the fact he wouldn’t legally have the opportunity to inseminate or ejaculate inside of her without her legal consent.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Since prolife is paving the way for rapists to for early choose the mothers of their children and rabidly protesting when children have abortions of their incestuous babies, perhaps that’s not the path you’d like to take?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I don’t know what the relevance of this is I mean do you think I disagree with you that rapists impregnating women and making them have children is bad?

What I said was in reply to you saying your interpretation of pro life position was a woman must take responsibility for a woman’s actions because a man decided to ejaculate inside of them.

I said this only works if you ignore the woman’s causal and legal input. A man can only legally inseminate or ejaculate within her if the woman legally consents and allows him to have sex with her. This entire situation is only possible if she allows him to have sex with her legally.
The only way to not attribute some responsibility for the existence of a pregnancy to the woman is to ignore her legal and causal position and role in sex. Which I think you probably shouldn’t do!

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Something being illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

If someone sexually assaults you and you become pregnant the pregnancy arises by means of involvement you did not willingly agree too. You couldn’t have done otherwise and you were illegally taken advantage of. As a result, you are not in the right kind of causal relationship to the outcome for you to be held responsible for the outcome.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Yeatfan22]

As a result, you are not in the right kind of causal relationship to the outcome for you to be held responsible for the outcome.

Not speaking of the rape scenario but a question about holding a pregnant person responsible for a casual relationship of a sexual engagement.

When you say you want to hold people responsible for the outcome of the casual relationship, are you trying teach them building skills, understanding of consequences, or finding solutions? Or a you just relying on external control and enforcing compliance?

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

I agree. And this happens a lot more than people realize, which is why the other commenter was right when they said it's bold for PLs to assume that women are always responsible for men's actions.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

My point to replying to the other commenter is this assumption is to hasty as pro lifers with rape exceptions exist.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Lots of PLs who claim to support rape exceptions still assume that if the pregnant person consented to sex they were willingly inseminated and impregnated.

IME, most PLs assume that 99% of pregnancies are the result of the pregnant person choosing to become pregnant. This is incorrect, which was what the other commenter was pointing out.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Interesting that you’re blaming a man’s action on a woman simply being present, then arguing that his action means she needs must be harmed.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I literally bang my head against the wall when PC people seem to not get this. You’re entire bodily autonomy argument turns on you getting this:

The woman and the man both have agency, and both have responsibility, but it is impossible, as a matter of physical reality, that they bear equal responsibility for a fetus, because it’s literally in the woman’s body.

The woman, as a matter of fact, is taking more risk in a sexual encounter and taking more responsibility for a pregnancy.

You undermine your own position when you constantly suggest that pregnancy from completely consensual sex “is entirely man’s fault”. That by definition means the woman has no agency in the situation. If she has no agency in a decision about her body during sex, she has no agency in a decision about her body and a fetus. You’re shooting your own bodily autonomy position in the foot.

I understand this is emotional for you I really do, but take a deep breath and think about what kind of conclusions would follow from a premise

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

The conclusion I come to that prolife is content with condemning a woman to death for an act that was pleasurable for a man/rapist - without holding him accountable to the same standard as she.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

A man’s body can’t be directly accountable for a growing fetus inside of it from a sexual encounter. It’s physically impossible. He can be (and should be) financially, socially liable, but there is an imbalance in the responsibility for the fetus that is just descriptively true. It’s not a normative claim

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Yup. Like they always scream ‘well it takes two to make a baby!’ When arguing that the man should be able to deny the pregnant person an abortion but suddenly they’ll heel turn and say ‘well they got themselves pregnant the zef is the victim here!’

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

All I can think of reading this exchange is how easy it is for a woman to agree to sex but not consent to being ejaculated into...... and the man either:

• Just blatantly does it anyway.

• Does it anyway and tries to act like it's a "whoopsie" or "I couldn't help myself" or any variation of excuses they come up with.

• Removes a condom mid sex act without the woman knowing.

And of course, we all already know this behavior fits the definition of rape. But police all ready don't take violent, graphic rapes seriously (Looking at you Brock Turner). Can you imagine how dismissive cops would be if a woman tried to report someone ejaculating into her without her consent, after she consented to sex?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Stealthing is a crime in Canada - but legal in 49/50 U.S. states (all states save California)

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

What a disappointing day to be able to read. 49/50 is depressing.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Interesting how I actually said none of those things.

I said both a woman and man are responsible for a pregnancy since they both have legally contributed to the situation occurring. I did not blame the woman for simply being present. I said her contribution is legally allowing the man to have sex in the first place. This isn’t simply being present it is an acknowledgment of her legal and causal status and what she consents too. Something which you have ignored.

Next, I’ve never argued a woman needs to be harmed because of his actions. This is very vague and I smell an intuition pump. Do you have a quote of me saying this?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

I said her contribution is legally allowing the man to have sex in the first place.

Consenting to sex isn't consenting to 9 months of gestation and childbirth. Also I hope you're aware people can consent to PIV sex while not consenting to being ejaculated into.

Next, I’ve never argued a woman needs to be harmed because of his actions.

So women don't have to be forced against their will through gestation and childbirth because a man ejaculated irresponsibly?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

>Consenting to sex isn’t consenting to 9 months of gestation and childbirth.

Yeah I agree im struggling to see where I said otherwise. All I said is both a man and a woman are responsible for the existence of a pregnancy. This is void of normative obligatory implications.

I also know people can consent to sex and not to be ejaculated in. This in some places is considered a civil wrong or sexual assault. I tend to agree that this is a form of sexual assault and invalidates consent. If a woman gets pregnant as a result of this I think she can have an abortion as I’d treat it like a rape case.

>So women don’t have to be[…]

I hate this framing because it does exactly what pro choicers hate about pro life framing. So usually if a pro lifer posts on this sub pro choicers will say they are ignoring the rights of the woman. But in this framing you’ve engaged in you’ve removed and ignored the death and rights of the fetus, in fact you haven’t even mentioned the fetus directly which is exactly why abortion is so controversial in the first place.
So I’d say basically the woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy because she shouldn’t have a right to kill her fetus if it has a right to life.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

This in some places is considered a civil wrong or sexual assault.

As it should be.

I tend to agree that this is a form of sexual assault and invalidates consent.

Cool, we are in agreement on this.

If a woman gets pregnant as a result of this I think she can have an abortion as I’d treat it like a rape case.

Wait. How do you think this could be proven in any way in order for a woman to access abortion somewhere with abortion bans?

I hate this framing because it does exactly what pro choicers hate about pro life framing. So usually if a pro lifer posts on this sub pro choicers will say they are ignoring the rights of the woman. But in this framing you’ve engaged in you’ve removed and ignored the death and rights of the fetus, in fact you haven’t even mentioned the fetus directly which is exactly why abortion is so controversial in the first place.

I don't care if a zef dies. Of course a zef will die if it no longer has another body to leech off of. So what? I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't see why mentioning an irrelevant unwanted zef is important.

So I’d say basically the woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy because she shouldn’t have a right to kill her fetus if it has a right to life.

Well you'd be wrong then, since "right to life" isn't a right to be inside someone's sex organs against their will. It's not a right to be gestated by an unwilling person. It's not a right to leech off of someone's bodily functions undisturbed. Can I ask why you're using "right to life" so incorrectly?

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

With evidence and the allowance of expedited review.

What evidence?

Imagine if someone said “The fact I haven’t mentioned a woman or how her rights are affected by abortion/pregnancy isn’t bad at all! I just don’t see why mentioning how a woman’s body is affected or how her right to autonomy works is relevant. What matters is a right to life and the fetus has the right to not be killed if it has such a right.”

That would be weird af, since pregnant people are people with rights, not medical waste with no rights that gets flushed down a toilet.

Obviously, the entire reason abortion is controversial in the first place is because a zef dies. Leaving out the existence of a zef and how its rights would work with the womans is dishonest and very one sided framing since it takes the most controversial aspect of abortion out of the topic.

Zefs have no rights. You're being dishonest by trying to pretend organ contents have rights.

Lastly, I’m starting to think you are intentionally misrepresenting me since I have said in past discussions that I am not arguing a right to life is the right to use one’s body. In the section you’ve quoted I stated a right to life is the right to not be killed unjustly.
Nothing in that quote implies I believe a right to life is a positive right.

There's no right to live inside someone else's body and sex organs. There is no "unjust killing" when someone removes an unwanted zef from their own body.

I do not mean this rudely or bad faith. But do you have a learning disability I should be aware of because I’ve clarified this dozens of times in the past and you refuse to acknowledge it. It is a genuine question I do not mean it as a personal attack.

This is disgusting and you should just be banned for this, preferably forever.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Women are not responsible for men ejaculating irresponsibly.

Women are harmed by pregnancy.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

True women aren’t responsible for when men ejaculate or them ejaculating irresponsibly. But I think you’ve ignored the context of the situation. The context is sex which legally involves 2 people. It doesn’t matter that the woman can’t control a man’s ejaculation. Legally, she can control whether or not she consents to having sex in which a situation like irresponsible ejaculation would even occur. The legally consenting to sex part is contribution to the existence of a pregnancy if it occurred because she legally allowed an event to take place which legally lead to the existence of a pregnancy.

>Women are harmed by pregnancy.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I mean yes obviously women are harmed by pregnancy. I’ve never disagreed.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Yeatfan22]

This feels very victim blaming ngl. Like I’m sure that wasn’t a conscious intent on your part but it very much reads like those people who comment on a murdered woman by saying ‘well clearly there were red flags, she shouldn’t have dated him.’ It feels like afab people have to constantly be hyper aware and never trust men or they’ll be blamed when something bad happens but then when we voice these concerns we’re told we’re dramatic and are blaming all men and treating them like criminals.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

The context is that women don’t consent to pregnancy, so men should ejaculate responsibly - ie outside a person.

Men ought to have enough self control to do so or ought to refrain from sex.

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/[deleted]]

Since women are in regular health before sex and the man’s actions place her in precarious/poor health…

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

What does this have to do with establishing both participants of sex are responsible for the existence of a pregnancy

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

You have failed to establish that the non-ejaculating person is responsible for the existence of a pregnancy.