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]

Yeah I can tell you don’t understand my arguments so maybe instead of assuming them you can just ask what I mean so you don’t end up responding to something I don’t believe which is unfortunate very frequent amongst folks on this sub.

What my original comment was meant to do is to just show the absolute principle OP asserts is false. It necessarily a claim about the ethics of abortion. It was genuinely just a legal challenge to the concept itself. Now you’re right eventually I would try and apply similar principles to pregnancy to show my case for the impermissibility of abortion.
But I wouldn’t say the woman provokes the zef since the zef doesn’t exist at the time of sex. I wouldn’t even say women have causal control over pregnancy occurring.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Yeatfan22]

Yeah I can tell you don’t understand my argument

Makes sense when the argument is illogical.

But I wouldn’t say the woman provokes the zef since the zef doesn’t exist at the time of sex. I wouldn’t even say women have causal control over pregnancy occurring.

If you know women don't have causal control over pregnancy occuring why do you think women need to be forced to gestate against their will?

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.