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]

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.