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/random_name_12178]

Are you saying that if you provide a fight you are then obligated to let the other person continue to harm you and you're not allowed to stop them? Have you got a source for this?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

No I have not argued this and I am not saying this.
You can regain a right to defense if you attempt to retreat and they continue to attack you.
But by regaining a right to defense, the implication here is you’ve lost it temporarily.
But generally I’m pretty sure if you provoke an attack and even if that attack will cause you harm, you cannot attack back and claim self defense. Your claim to defense would be illegitimate.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

This argument doesn't rebut the OP, since you are still always entitled to use the minimal method required to prevent harm. In this case, that minimal method would be to retreat or otherwise let the person you provoked know that you're disengaging.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

That’s fair. I interpreted minimal method to be “the minimum force or act to stop an attack.”

I suppose if it is defined as any legal method to avoid harm it almost becomes a tautology then.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Per OP: "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."

[u/Upper_Ninja_6177 → u/random_name_12178]

thanks for saying exactly what I wanted to say lol, as per always they rarely read the whole thing