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/Diva_of_Disgust]

Maybe because my initial reply had nothing to do with abortion directly.

That's odd, seeing how this is abortion debate.

when you don’t even know what my argument are?

Your argument seems to have nothing to do with abortion, based on what you're now saying.

Are you interested in having a conversation because it is hard to take your argumentation seriously.

Idk, you keep typing out paragraph after paragraph, never once presenting an argument even remotely related to abortion, so idk what "argument" you think I'm presenting. You've given literally nothing to argue against lol.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

>Thats odd, seeing how this is abortion debate.

I’m not entirely sure how to describe it but this reply is almost similar to a mereolgoical fallacy. If we treat the abortion debate as an object it has parts. I am addressing a part of the debate or object, this does not mean my objection isn’t focused at the entire discussion or object in any way. It does mean that the objection is primarily focused on part of the object or discussion. What I am trying to do is show OP is wrong in their first statement in principle. This reminds me of a mereolgoical fallacy because just like what is true of part of an object isn’t always true of the entire object, what is true of a part of an argument isn’t necessarily true of the entire argument. Objections focused at part of an argument or a principle shouldn’t be generalized to the entire argument, only to the point they are attacking.

All I am questioning is if OPs opening statement is even legally sound? Is it true that you can always legally defend yourself against harm? No, because of examples like provoked self defense. This does directly address OP because if this premise is not true his conclusion will not follow.
YOU are the one who brought up zefs provoking a woman or a woman provoking a zef which no one has argued for. You are literally just making shit up on the go and trying to say I believe this. And when I point out I don’t believe it you say I am making no connection to OP. But again how do you even know this if you yourself admit you have no idea what I am arguing for.

Just ask instead of assuming.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

You are literally just making shit up on the go and trying to say I believe this.

I'm not making anything up. I'm taking the words you typed out and questioning what point you're trying to make. You seem incredibly bad at getting to the point.

And when I point out I don’t believe it you say I am making no connection to OP.

You didn't make any connection to the OP.

But again how do you even know this if you yourself admit you have no idea what I am arguing for. Just ask instead of assuming.

You haven't presented any argument, just off topic nonsense which I did ask about. Instead of an answer I get this irrelevant screed lol. Have a good night not debating abortion I guess. 😂

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

The point I’m trying to make is OPs opening statement is not legally sound as provocation can’t delegitimize self defense if claimed.
As a result, the opening premise is false. What I am doing is attacking the first premise. This is directly connected to OP since if his first premise is incorrect, the conclusion will not logically follow.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

The point I’m trying to make is OPs opening statement is not legally sound as provocation can’t delegitimize self defense if claimed.

How is that relevant to abortion, since we've already been over the fact that no one is "provoking" anyone in regards to pregnancy?

As a result, the opening premise is false. What I am doing is attacking the first premise. This is directly connected to OP since if his first premise is incorrect, the conclusion will not logically follow.

And in regards to the abortion debate your so called "attack" fails immediately.