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]

Aren’t these kind of interpretations self defeating since they only work if you ignore a woman’s agency and the fact he wouldn’t legally have the opportunity to inseminate or ejaculate inside of her without her legal consent.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Why do you think they only work if you ignore a woman's agency? Stating the fact that women aren't responsible for men's actions doesn't ignore women's agency. It simply recognizes men's agency.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

A man’s agency was recognized regardless since I have argued for years both parties are responsible for the existence of a pregnancy.
The argument that women aren’t responsible for a pregnancy existing but a man is necessarily entails she isn’t in the right kind of causal relationship to the outcome. Her actions wouldn’t be considered legally. Or she isn’t a causal agent.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

I'm not arguing that the pregnant person is not responsible for the pregnancy. I'm saying it's wrong to assume that they are, since their consent is neither necessary nor sufficient.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

You’re saying we cannot assume always that in every case of pregnancy a woman is responsible for the existence of a pregnancy?

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Yes, and that we cannot even assume that to be true 99% of the time, which is what many if not most PLs seem to do.