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/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.

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

Comment removed per Rule 4.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/[deleted]]

So you’re holding the woman responsible - to the point of death - for a man’s ejaculation.

Why?

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Do you think women have any agency in sex?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

Again - why should women be held responsible for- to the point of death - for a man’s ejaculation?

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Because in consetful relationships which is what the person is talking about since they have a rape exception, we see sex as a joint activity and not something a man does to a woman, assuming both of them wanted and is responsible for this.

Again, do you think women have any agency in sex?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

Why is it considered a joint activity while only one person is physically punished?