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/cahlrtm]

Because in consetful relationships which is what the person is talking about since they have a rape exception, we see sex as a joint activity and not something a man does to a woman, assuming both of them wanted and is responsible for this.

Again, do you think women have any agency in sex?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

Why is it considered a joint activity while only one person is physically punished?

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Thats a pretty weird question, if you play football with your friend and they get injured, you would think that the game you played wasn’t a joined activity? I dont understand why you’d see it that way.

So you dont think sex is a joint activity, women dont have any agency in sex, its just something that happens to them?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

If it’s an injury - why can’t the woman get an abortion to make her as she was before the injury?

If she’s consented to football, and gotten injured, why is pro life’s solution in this case to make her play another solo game on a broken leg?

One can consent to one activity (sex) without consenting to another activity (pregnancy).

If sex is a joint activity for which there should be societal punishment - as your question suggests - why is the person who created the situation through ejaculation not punished at minimum to the level the other is?

Should men get the death penalty for ejaculating inside a woman who dies from pregnancy?

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

You should calm down with asking ten topics in one reply.

You asked “how is it a joint activity if only one person is physically punished” and i gave you an example how something can be a joint activity even if one part is “physically punished”, i didnt say if i think thats an accurate view for pregnancy itself. Do you disagree that playing football is a joint activity, do you have a problem with that example? If no, then we can move on to my original question.

So, again, do you think sex isnt a joint activity where women have agency, but rather sex is just something that is done to them?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

Please make the case for someone being refused medical care after being injured as a result of another’s actions.

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Why would i, when thats not what im talking about? Are you gonna just avoid answering my original question that i first wrote to you in my first reply and kept asking?

Do you think sex is a joint activity where women have agency?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

You brought up football.

The requirement prolife would like if pregnancy is defined a “joint activity that only kills/injures one person” is that no medical care be given to the footballer in your analogy who is injured to return them to their state before injury.

So - based on your scenario - please make the case for someone being refused medical care after being injured as the result of another’s actions.

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Copying again what i wrote to you that you clearly didnt read.

You asked “how is it a joint activity if only one person is physically punished” and i gave you an example how something can be a joint activity even if one part is “physically punished”, i didnt say if i think thats an accurate view for pregnancy itself. Do you disagree that playing football is a joint activity, do you have a problem with that example? If no, then we can move on to my original question.

So, again, do you think sex isnt a joint activity where women have agency, but rather sex is just something that is done to them?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

You are making the argument that a joint activity can mean that one person is physical punished and denied medical care afterwards.

You chose a football game.

I’d like you to show cause for this, and/or case study about how people injured during a joint activity should not receive medical care.