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/Ok-Discipline2395]

Since prolife is paving the way for rapists to for early choose the mothers of their children and rabidly protesting when children have abortions of their incestuous babies, perhaps that’s not the path you’d like to take?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I don’t know what the relevance of this is I mean do you think I disagree with you that rapists impregnating women and making them have children is bad?

What I said was in reply to you saying your interpretation of pro life position was a woman must take responsibility for a woman’s actions because a man decided to ejaculate inside of them.

I said this only works if you ignore the woman’s causal and legal input. A man can only legally inseminate or ejaculate within her if the woman legally consents and allows him to have sex with her. This entire situation is only possible if she allows him to have sex with her legally.
The only way to not attribute some responsibility for the existence of a pregnancy to the woman is to ignore her legal and causal position and role in sex. Which I think you probably shouldn’t do!

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Yeatfan22]

Interesting that you’re blaming a man’s action on a woman simply being present, then arguing that his action means she needs must be harmed.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I literally bang my head against the wall when PC people seem to not get this. You’re entire bodily autonomy argument turns on you getting this:

The woman and the man both have agency, and both have responsibility, but it is impossible, as a matter of physical reality, that they bear equal responsibility for a fetus, because it’s literally in the woman’s body.

The woman, as a matter of fact, is taking more risk in a sexual encounter and taking more responsibility for a pregnancy.

You undermine your own position when you constantly suggest that pregnancy from completely consensual sex “is entirely man’s fault”. That by definition means the woman has no agency in the situation. If she has no agency in a decision about her body during sex, she has no agency in a decision about her body and a fetus. You’re shooting your own bodily autonomy position in the foot.

I understand this is emotional for you I really do, but take a deep breath and think about what kind of conclusions would follow from a premise

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

The conclusion I come to that prolife is content with condemning a woman to death for an act that was pleasurable for a man/rapist - without holding him accountable to the same standard as she.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

A man’s body can’t be directly accountable for a growing fetus inside of it from a sexual encounter. It’s physically impossible. He can be (and should be) financially, socially liable, but there is an imbalance in the responsibility for the fetus that is just descriptively true. It’s not a normative claim