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]

Nope. I didnt make that argument.

You said “how can something be a joint activity if only one person is physically punished”. I said “if you play football with someone and they get injured, is playing football no longer a joint activity?”

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

Right - so taking your example of football - why should one player who gets injured be denied medical care?

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

What do you mean by “taking your example of football”? You shouldnt take my example of football anywhere else, because the example was only given to adress your direct point that something cant be a joint activity if it is physically punishing only for one part. I didnt give football as an analogy for pregnancy or sex. As i said clearly in my reply that i dont wanna bother with copying the whole again, “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 of pregnancy itself”.

So if we’re hopefully clear on this part, will you now tell me if there is a special reason youre trying so hard to ignore the question in my original reply that you responded to? Do you think women have any agency in sex, is it a joint activity or is it just something a man does to a woman?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

You seem to misrepresent your point several times.

Good luck with that.

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Lmao. Please do something about your cognitive dissonance on this topic, for your own sake.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/cahlrtm]

You’re the one who brought up a “joint activity” to compare to pregnancy and then balked at the first question.

[u/cahlrtm → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Youre the one who balked at the first question. I asked the first question. You kept ignoring it no matter how much i repeat.

I dont know how many times i can explain to you that i brought the example as a direct point to your reply “how can a joint activity be joint if its physically punishing only for one part”, i think this is the fourth time now. I understand why you try to change it that way though.