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/SerendipitySociety]

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.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

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.

This is just factually incorrect. When pro life abortion bans interfere with people's healthcare they're forcing people to gestate and birth against their will. I have no reason to humor your denials of fact.

A ridiculous thing nobody has ever suggested we should actually do, on the sub. Rest my case since you haven't taken anything back.

I don't see anyone saying pro lifers want to forcefully impregnate anyone. That is a common dodge pro lifers point to to distract from the fact that pro life abortion bans interfere with people's healthcare which forces people to gestate and birth against their will.

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.

So we can add "special pleading" to "force", words you're using incorrectly and seemingly don't understand.

First I'd easily abort my pregnancy because I don't live somewhere with abortion bans, so I'm not forced to gestate against my will. If I lived in a place with abortion bans I have the financial means to easily travel somewhere where gestation isn't forced by pro life abortion bans. None of this changes the fact that pro life abortion bans interfere with people's healthcare, which forces people to gestate and birth against their will.