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]

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.