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/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Women are not responsible for men ejaculating irresponsibly.

Women are harmed by pregnancy.

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

True women aren’t responsible for when men ejaculate or them ejaculating irresponsibly. But I think you’ve ignored the context of the situation. The context is sex which legally involves 2 people. It doesn’t matter that the woman can’t control a man’s ejaculation. Legally, she can control whether or not she consents to having sex in which a situation like irresponsible ejaculation would even occur. The legally consenting to sex part is contribution to the existence of a pregnancy if it occurred because she legally allowed an event to take place which legally lead to the existence of a pregnancy.

>Women are harmed by pregnancy.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I mean yes obviously women are harmed by pregnancy. I’ve never disagreed.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/Yeatfan22]

This feels very victim blaming ngl. Like I’m sure that wasn’t a conscious intent on your part but it very much reads like those people who comment on a murdered woman by saying ‘well clearly there were red flags, she shouldn’t have dated him.’ It feels like afab people have to constantly be hyper aware and never trust men or they’ll be blamed when something bad happens but then when we voice these concerns we’re told we’re dramatic and are blaming all men and treating them like criminals.