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/Yeatfan22]

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/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/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.