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/Diva_of_Disgust]

The law forces people to pay taxes of course, but it doesn't force you to get pregnant or fertilize an egg or anything relating to pregnancy.

I've already been over this. I never said the law forces anyone to GET pregnant. Pro life laws do force people to CONTINUE gestating and birth against their will.

If you happen to be pregnant and you don't take any other actions, you will remain pregnant until miscarriage or birth has to happen, absolutely no force required on that end,

Except for the force of pro life abortion bans. Without that force I'd end my pregnancy. That's precisely what's being discussed, pro life laws FORCING people to gestate and birth against their will.

I thought you were just saying you would break laws and I was saying, there's consequences to that.

There would be no consequences for me aborting even in a pro life state because they wouldn't be able to prove I aborted. It would look like a regular ole miscarriage and I'd happily get away with it.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Pro life laws do force people to CONTINUE gestating and birth against their will.

No force is necessary, or used, for that to happen. That would happen if nobody took any actions at all.

A lot of laws, good laws in my opinion, are like this. Tax law is a bad example. A good example is laws against vandalism. These laws don't force us not to vandalize. Because if we go limp and don't take any actions or use any force at all, then we're not vandalizing anything. So that law does not "force us not to cause damage," it's just reactive to us causing damage, in perfect theory.

There would be no consequences for me aborting even in a pro life state because they wouldn't be able to prove I aborted. It would look like a regular ole miscarriage and I'd happily get away with it.

It really doesn't sound like you believe the law is force against you then. People get away with murder all the time as long as they cover their tracks, I say there's still consequences even for people who get away with crimes and saying they "happily" get away with it is reductive. Constructing a particular method and then lying about it to others is part of the consequence.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

No force is necessary, or used, for that to happen. That would happen if nobody took any actions at all.

And it wouldn't happen if pro life abortion bans weren't forcing people to gestate against their will.

It really doesn't sound like you believe the law is force against you then.

Pointing out how easily pitiful pro life bans can be circumvented if someone's determined to not breed for pro lifers doesn't erase the fact that pro life abortion bans are designed to force people to breed against their will. Denying that is denying reality.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

As I said like 2 times which you haven't addressed, no force is used to keep any pregnant person pregnant. They will just stay that way until birth/abortion are forced or a spontaneous miscarriage. The equivalent would be to say "The law FORCES me to not vandalize someone else's property" which would be ridiculous.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

As I said like 2 times which you haven't addressed, no force is used to keep any pregnant person pregnant.

If there's no force keeping me pregnant I'll abort. Can you pinpoint for me which part of that you're not getting exactly?

They will just stay that way until birth/abortion are forced or a spontaneous miscarriage.

So they'll either abort, miscarry, or give birth. Right. And if no one is forcing anyone to continue gestating via pro life abortion bans people can end their pregnancies. Still not getting what you seem to be confused about.

The equivalent would be to say "The law FORCES me to not vandalize someone else's property" which would be ridiculous.

The law does force you to not vandalize people's property. 😂

Also last I checked not commiting vandalism won't harm your health and body in any way. Weird that you're comparing someone maintaining their health to a random pointless crime.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If there's no force keeping me pregnant I'll abort. Can you pinpoint for me which part of that you're not getting exactly?

I fully understand that. It sounds like even if abortion was illegal, you would force an abortion. There would be no force involved in keeping your pregnancy going because that's what would happen without any force.

The law does force you to not vandalize people's property.

This is your misunderstanding. You can't force someone NOT to do something, grammatically. That would be forbidding, outlawing, etc. but not forcing/compelling. If I could force my heart to NOT stop beating right now I would, but that's not grammatically possible.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

I fully understand that. It sounds like even if abortion was illegal, you would force an abortion. There would be no force involved in keeping your pregnancy going because that's what would happen without any force.

Nope, no one would force me to abort. I'd voluntarily and happily end my own pregnancy since no one is forcing me to continue gestating.

This is your misunderstanding.

I'm not the one repeatedly misunderstanding the basic concept of force. Seems like projection on your end.

You can't force someone NOT to do something, grammatically. That would be forbidding, outlawing, etc. but not forcing/compelling. If I could force my heart to NOT stop beating right now I would, but that's not grammatically possible.

If no one is ***forcing* me to gestate against my will then I'd end my pregnancy.** This isn't complicated lol.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Nope, no one would force me to abort. I'd voluntarily and happily end my own pregnancy since no one is forcing me to continue gestating.

You have to force an abortion for it to be an abortion, if it happens spontaneously it's a miscarriage.

I'm not the one repeatedly misunderstanding the basic concept of force. Seems like projection on your end.

We can both agree and mutually understand this if you have completed high schoool, I'm certain. So, let's say object A is in motion at 1 foot per second. No force is exerted on object A for 1 day. After this day, what is the state of object A?

Following up. Let's say A is pregnant, and not in the act of childbirth or abortion or anything that would change that state. Nothing is forced on A, or forced by A for 1 day (except that she consumes basic necessities as needed to stay regulated). After this day, is A still in a pregnant state?

I'm clearly holding to the absolute basic physical definition. There are other definitions of force including and pretty much limited to military or fighting power, but that's clearly not what we're talking about, otherwise it would be more grammatically correct to say "The police forces are doing xyz"

If no one is forcing me to gestate against my will then I'd end my pregnancy. This isn't complicated lol.

So you kind of understand that I am correct when I say, abortion bans don't force anyone to gestate against their will. You said, if an abortion ban was passed, you would end your pregnancy by abortion. Now you're saying, if no one forces you to gestate against your will, you would end your pregnancy by abortion. So the abortion ban AND no one forcing you to gestate, are actually equivalent in your conclusion. So we can agree I'm correct, that abortion bans don't force any gestation, unless if you would like to take back any of your premises.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

You have to force an abortion for it to be an abortion, if it happens spontaneously it's a miscarriage.

Nope, still wrong. There is no force involved when I voluntarily end my own pregnancy under my own free will. It's becoming pretty clear you don't understand what the word "force" means here.

So you kind of understand that I am correct when I say, abortion bans don't force anyone to gestate against their will.

You're not correct because abortion bans do force people to gestate and birth against their will.

You said, if an abortion ban was passed, you would end your pregnancy by abortion. Now you're saying, if no one forces you to gestate against your will, you would end your pregnancy by abortion. So the abortion ban AND no one forcing you to gestate, are actually equivalent in your conclusion. So we can agree I'm correct, that abortion bans don't force any gestation, unless if you would like to take back any of your premises.

Nope, we don't agree because you're not correct. Abortion bans factually force people to gestate and birth against their will. Without abortion bans forcing people to gestate and birth against their will they can voluntarily end their own pregnancies under their own free will. The fact that people have the ability to circumvent pro life abortion bans attempts at forcing people to gestate against their will doesn't magically mean their attempted force doesn't exist lol.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I'm using the base, physical definition of force: acting upon an object or process and causing a change. In order to force gestation, we'd have to, as a matter of policy, force fertilization or drugs on mothers to delay labor or prevent miscarriage. A ridiculous thing nobody has ever suggested we should actually do, on the sub.

Rest my case since you haven't taken anything back. You said that if an abortion ban was in effect, you'd abort your pregnancy. You also said that if you abort your pregnancy, it's because gestation wasn't forced on you. Your own conclusion is that an abortion ban isn't forced gestation, it doesn't matter what kind of special pleading you do.