If Abortion became Illegal, what would the punishment be?

Those fall under the "Infant Mortality rate" in which the U.S is a leader. I argue that it's because of abortion that we're leaders. After all, you've demonstrated quite clearly what your thoughts are on life.

(Example: What do you feel about the Texas Law and that'll try to prevent another Gosnell? My bet is, you oppose it. Exactly, to you life is abstract and not worth very much)

Since we don't care, our post-natal care for these children generally suck.(And/or, they don't even receive it). Either way, a lack of emphasis on these babies fundamentally as life damages them. The egotism of Liberal Ideology is the death of millions of babies. Even if a pro-life couple has a baby, there's a chance of medical negligence because hey, who cares? It's a blob!

The comparison is "off"(Not really) in that unlike a test, there isn't a do over when it comes to births with complications. The comparison however is still accurate, in two ways.

A: That baby, will hopefully grow up to overcome its challenges(Stephen Hawking was mentioned and I didn't even know that story.)

B: I know this thought is something that's outrageous to you, but back when we were a world power it was common for American females to have more than one child!
This means the female, having experienced a complicated birth before will take more preventive measures(no, not the kind you like) in order to necessitate a healthy birth.

She might eat healthier foods. Or she might get repeated medical checkups. Or
she might hire a nanny(and I argue this should be covered by Health Insurance. Obamacare wants to make Abortion easier to access, birth control pills accessible to even 16 year olds!

Or heck even younger

As the story goes, the Department of Health sued the FDA and the Court actually ruled in favor(initially) of the FDA. But then they flip-flopped and said that if they dropped the suit, we'd have these children hooked on drugs in no time!

And that's precisely what occurred just a month or so ago I believe.

I love how that Washington Times article argues "There seems to be “no real evidence to suggest that making contraception, including EC, available to teens, or more readily available to teens, encourages them to begin having sex, have sex at a younger age, or have more sexual partners,”

Really? No? Of Course not! Because teens having unfettered access to these kind of drugs has never been done before

You cannot say as a fact that there's "no evidence", because the evidence doesn't exist.

We can Theorize, and we theorize 623 by Turning the Chessboard Over

Whether or not the FDA lessens restrictions(sane ones might we concur) on the availability of these drugs, teen pregnancy still exists. Young adolescents will continue to experiment and have sex.

You yourself argued to the Promiscuity of younger Americans so you should have no problem with my layout so far.


You also should concur and acknowledge that these adolescents face the risk of pregnancy in unprotected or even in the case of a condom breaking. Again, no contradictions. Because of this, let's say "X amount of adolescents" do not participate.

Now, here's where it starts to get interesting: The FDA approves the birth control pill for younger adolescents. The group of Adolescents that didn't participate due to the risks, will now gleefully participate.

And the ones who didn't care about the risk? Can feel even more secure about their
promiscuity.

I'll now pull a Lambda. As the Intellectual of Certainty I declare with absolute certainty that Promiscuity will increase

I didn't have to Turn the Chessboard over, to prove that at the very least the conservative fear of an overgrowth of promiscuity is a legitimate fear. I could have used the inferior "backwards analysis" to confirm it, and for you I will.

(Because you could argue that my Turning the Chessboard is merely my opinions confirming themselves)

On May 9, 1960 the first Birth Control Pill was approved by the FDA

Now we have the starting point, what of infidelity?

This article mentions of the Promiscuity in the feminist revolution of the 60's.


And this Scientific Study confirms there was an increase in sexuality during the 60's-70's. This increase, of course then became the "new"(or rather accepted) norm

So by applying the Backwards Analysis theory, we can supplement the Chessboard Theory. I can state with absolute certainty that infidelity will increase(insofar as a vast majority of us are already infidel).

So let me take it a step further: Open access to Birth Control will not fetter infidelity. Or rather yet, infidelity will increase among younger, at risk Americans(age 13-16).


No matter what way you wanna look at it, the pill does nothing positive for society. Liberals have not "moved forward"(as is their favorite slogan)

You could make the argument that if open access won't fetter infidelity that it
shouldn't be a concern for Conservatives.(not that I align with them in their entirety. But merely in the social theorem we have more in common then not.)

But it is a concern if it does indeed promote even more promiscuity among the younger, at-risk Americans. Wasn't the goal to curb teen pregnancy? This ironically does nothing to stop that.(I have my doubts the pill is fool proof, or that these young adolescents can take the medication in a safe and effective manner)

Another concern, which equally cannot be proven(nor can I hypothesize its probability) is that if the age limits are lowered and if consent is taken away, this eventually will be the case for all drugs.

This Theory is dubbed simply "Mistrust". The "progress" of receding laws, will
make it evident to the law-abiding American that laws cease to exist. This "Progressive-recession" is incredibly dangerous. The risk is obvious: At-risk adolescents for suicide(which ties Mental Health into this) could get access to chemically inducing drugs and we have another Columbine on our hands.

It doesn't have to be at-risk for suicide(or even for violence), "normal" teenagers can get these hands on these drugs, abuse them and become at-risk. They'd ultimately become drug dealers, prostitutes and gang members.

Ah, such is "progress" right?

Although we've no proof that this Progressive-recession will take place as it regards laws continuing to decline for drug use, we do know the consequences are far too great to even risk it. So the best preventative measure is to strike this down.

Sorry young ladies, but if you want protection you're going to have to get in the line just like with every other prescription, prescribed by a doctor!





I'm going to tell you that, and I'm going to disagree with the premise as it regards a criminal. Contradictory? Let me explain: A sperm and an egg(a potential
Human Being) and an Adult Human Being who hasn't committed a crime have the same social status as Humans. One isn't superior to the other as it regards their civil rights.

You cannot ordain a woman to be God over her child, no matter how much intellectual twisting and turning you do, you cannot ordain superiority regarding life, when that very superiority is utterly rejected among conscious adult human beings in relation to each other.

To do otherwise, is fundamentally ageist. Ageism in this case, leads to the genocide of the developing fetus who unfortunately lacks consciousness to contest your decisions, made as the "superior" Human Being.

Which begs the question of how much do we really reject Nietzsche's Superhuman argument? Since we ourselves ordain fetuses as inferior, thereby justifying killing them to suit our economic purposes, we don't reject it at all.

We just reject it in relation to ourselves, which is really hypocritical.

Even as it relates Adults to their born children, yes they are superior but their superiority ordains responsibility unto them to take care of the child. To do otherwise is known as Child Abuse!

If we do a little correlation, by caring for children adults have confirmed that a child deserves the same rights to happiness that an adult has(and the only restrictions apply in the sense that a child cannot theoretically make proper judgment on certain adult rights such as drinking, driving, etc.

So if Adult Humans and Minors deserve the same fundamental rights, how much of a
stretch is it to ordain the Fetus, which will always turn out to be a Human has the same rights? There has been no recorded incidence in Human History for a fetus developing into anything but a Human.

Bestiality may be a fetish, but I honestly don't think it should be illegal since it's been proven that the animal ecological system and the Human ecological system are fundamentally different. Neither animal nor human can impregnate the other.

It's therefore not a stretch, but a Logical Order of Events

It is thereby Impossible to justify Abortion through moral means

You're fighting a losing battle, It is impossible to categorize the fetus as a different species from the human that's carrying it

Especially if it becomes economically feasible for all or most families to have one or more children. Then the last remaining 'justification' for American Ageism has just gone out the window.

Liberalism Theory in Abortion is selfishness, you can't call it anything but selfish. The only 'justification' that can be intellectually accepted as it regards Abortion is 'self-justification'

Which is why it's framed as a "war on women", if we framed it as a "war on fetuses" it would be logically held unacceptable. What Conservatives need to do is frame it as a war on fetuses, which is what it intellectually is.

Men aren't "controlling" women as much as they are preserving the right of
life to Fetuses who are now vulnerable where they were once most safe.






Do you ignore your own arguments when you make them? You said that health complications make delivering more expensive then it has to be. So thereby a natural birth not only makes things easier for the baby, but more economically sound for the parent. This fact was established by the next article I gave you.




I'm pretty sure you're right. That's what we call selfishness, it's also what we call ignorance. Liberals like to charge that conservatives ignore the scientific evidence or facts. Now how does it feel for the shoe to be on the other foot? Furthermore, when were "illegal abortions" ever brought up? By any article, including the one this quote references? When did I ever bring it up?

Since you've now taken to feigning ignorance as your debating strategy, I will now demonstratively prove everything I say to be correct. So that even if you continue to feign ignorance, our audience will acknowledge me to be correct.

Lino Mark of the U.S Department of Argiculture(2012) gives us the data on the costs of raising a child.

You don't have to look at the article, heck the abstract tells us what we want to know.



Now guess what we have to do 623? All we have to do is compare the income earners of those who, well let's start off with Associates and we can go to Bachelor degrees(heck, we'll include the H.S. dropoffs to be fair).

I declare that it's A Zero-Sum Game and that the parent, if his/her child is employed will virtually earn back all of his/her investment.

You'll likely argue back that that income is primarily private income belonging to the child(now an adult), which is true. But from a social standpoint, that child
isn't going to simply watch his/her parents die off(unless well, that child perceives they've been jerks to it)

Okay then, so let's say a portion of that child's income will indirectly positively boost a family's socio-economic standing. Let's go even further and state that in the case of H.S dropouts, their national income doesn't reflect the
possibility of getting two jobs, thereby doubling even their income.


Now that I've set up all of the rules of the game, shall we play?

The convenience of Government Studies. It did all the work for me.

Let's display it here.

Non-HS Graduates:
$21,000(on Average). Keep in mind, averages don't take into account the possibility the drop-out could be working two jobs. Which theoretically doubles this income.

HS Graduates:
$33,000(Women on the other hand only make $25,000)

Bachelor Graduates:
$49,000(Women make $40,000)

Master Graduates:
$54,000(It doesn't say, but I'm going to estimate it's at a fixed rate of\
10,000 less. So let's say $45,000)

Now we have all of the salaries, and I said theoretically a portion(Which is heck, better for you. I should've said "half" but I won't to prove a point) A portion= 1/3rd.

Men: Women:

$21,000/3=$7,000 Same
$33,000/3=$11,000 $25,000/3=$8,300
$49,000/3=$16,500 $40,000/3=$10,000
$54,000/3=$18,000 $45,000/3=$15,000


So now, let's take a look. A portion of a male's dropout income is roughly half
of a parent's cost. So the parent theoretically lost $7,000 dollars, not $14,000. But keep in mind, the H.S. drop out could get another job(or could theoretically go back to school) or even invest, various different mechanisms to increase even this dropout's earning.

A portion of a H.S graduate's income nearly covers his entire bill to his parents.(Ssve for a couple of thousand). Should your child become a bachelor's or a master's graduate, your actually making a profit!

It's the same for the woman(especially as more women have entered the work force with more Masters then Men!)

It's also important to note that I handicapped myself by saying a portion(1/3rd) which while very realistic is also misleading. It's entirely possible for these unknown variables to not only make more, but assuming that they didn't it's also
largely possible that they give up than a portion.

Let's say half. In which case, instead of $7,000 from the drop-off, it becomes $9,000. So you only lost $5,000 on that investment.

Instead of $11,000, we end up with $22,000. A $8,000 surplus!
And the bigger the ripple as we look at dividing Bachelor and Master incomes.

So if you have a child, you're economically invested in creating the ripple effect. The more education, the better. The healthier the better. Because of all the various variables, it's even possible for a dropout to succeed.(And thereby for your profit as a parent).

Of course, it's possible for you to lose(incarceration). But if a child is lawful,
the statistics bare out that you can either make most of your investment back or a
profit.

None of this, includes what you are doing economically as a parent. Your Income could potentially also off-set costs. So a Middle class or Upper class family is virtually guaranteed of always playing the Zero-Sum Game.

A Middle Class Family will never lose on it's investment in a child.

The only ones who can lose, would be impoverished families. Whom are the primary targets of Abortion Advocates. But should we lose a potential life, merely to save costs?

Wouldn't it be maximizing our efforts and profits by lifting these impoverished
families up, and making them self-sufficient? Thereby we can have more Americans born into the country, who will make up the new American class of the future.





Meaning that while it's significant enough to lend credence to those specific issues, it's not significant enough to promote as a open-ended(or a public) policy. In other words, I see medical abortion as an emergency operation. By limiting the case of abortion to strictly emergency or necessary cases(such as your beloved "rape/incest" cases of 1%), instead of millions of babies,we only deal with thousands).

By making law ethical, moral and intellectual we uphold the glory of Plato and Socrates as well as the glory of our Founders. It might not be glorious for you, since it doesn't give you special privileges over the Fetus. But guess what? Tough shit. We don't have that right either.







Should I take this as a confession that you don't know what you're debating? I'll keep "insults" to a bare minimum but I believe that my anime references aside, that segment was kindergarten-ish. So allow me to rephrase in a simple sentence:

There are only so many women in a group. Let's split them into two groups. "Y" Group is the group for women who aborted due to rape/incest/etc.
"X" Group is for the group of women who aborted due to other reasons.

Let's say that there were 100 women before dividing them. Let's say that 90 women went into Group X. This vast majority not only confirms that Rape, Incest,
etc is not an issue. But let's say that among the 10 remaining, only
2 or 3 women go into the pitiful Y column. This means there's 7-8
undecided women. Of these, because 4/5ths of women have chosen group X,
let's assume 5-6 women will have an abortion due to economic considerations.

Ultimately, this means only 4/5 of 100 women will need an abortion due to rape, incest, etc. Every Single Time

This is called mathematical probabilities. The dwindling number of females who aren't in a group, virtually confirm that citing those issues as a reason for abortion is virtually nil.

For rape, it'll obviously be higher. But I'll summarize not much higher. Instead of 2/3 women, we'd say 6 of the 10 remaining women were to join that group. So the "Rape Group" on its own has 8/9 women.

I guarantee, if studies separated the groups of rape and incest and asked about the pregnancy question, you'd get a overwhelming difference(as in, almost non existence of pregnancy due to incest)

Why? Mostly because its outlawed in the U.S. and most developed Western Nations.
And it's also morally looked down upon. Some will do it, but in a country of millions, a few thousands is peanuts.

You'll say that new women might join the group, and the percentages might
play out differently. It *might*, more women might be raped then the previous group. But the overwhelming economic concerns will still rule the thought process in the abortion procedure.

Group X will always be much bigger than Group Y.


Your argument is emotional, but it really only exists economically. Do we wish
that people didn't commit rape or incest? Yeah, of course we do but it's as much of reality as murder is.

You can argue for abortion as much as you'd like, but please don't argue justification under the guise of the tragedy of Rape, incest with their utterly inferior numbers, which can never be a mathematical majority no matter which group you look at.






It's true that you didn't have control over your actions in the birth cycle. It's precisely for that reason that abortion is immoral. Not only didn't you have control of your actions, but you were utterly unconscious of them. Do you understand what this means? You may have the desire for life(in fact, I'd argue there's no reason for any growing fetus to deny it's own desire for life) but you now argue that your mother had the right to terminate that right, just because she
could.

How would you feel about that? Put yourself in the shoes of a fetus, once again being unable to conceive anything or feel anything and being killed just like that. You'd argue that you'd know "nothing", but that's a Human Being's worse fear.

Nothing could be more emotionally devastating than being in a state of living one moment, and then dying the next moment.

I'd also argue that the reason a "pro-choicer" chooses abortion is because they feel guilty. Of course, they themselves cannot change however they may have been born but because of those circumstances, they feel it's morally justified or right to govern those circumstances, as best they can for their offspring.

If that twin story is true, I summarize I'm correct about what you're feeling in support of the Abortion Theory. It's your way to ensure your child is born healthy.

I'll give you a little concession: I argued to Horizon that I feel partially the same way. If a fetus of mine were endangered to the point where it couldn't function in society, I'm not going to let it live a tortuous living death. I'd rather have it aborted there and then, and in my mind that's medical abortion.

But if my child would be "challenged" with Autism or something of the sort, I say: Fuck it. We can deal with the lumps and the growing pains, we can make our child a lovable, independent and strong adult.

This will boil down to a difference of ideology: As long as my child is sufficiently healthy to potentially co-exist among other people I have no reason
whatsoever to terminate his/her life.

Not only don't I have reason, I don't have any moral rights or justifications to do so. And neither too, does the mother. So believe me, I'll be picky about who my life partner is. My child has the right, obligation and expectation to believe his/her mother cares for him/her more than anything else.




Seriously? You're going to contest this? Come now, what do you think terminating a life for a few thousand dollars is? A few thousand dollars that
in a couple of decades, you'll more than make back.

It's the act of selectively choosing offspring to create the best possible results.

In this case, let's say that you're selectively choosing whether or not to bring the baby to term to create the best economic advantages.

How is that any different? How is it not a fact? How is it even an opinion?





No, but you might be ignorant of them. Ready? This is your Final Point and once I intellectually crush it, I want you to possibly reconsider the idea of abortion as a feasible "solution" to anything.

There are more boys than girls in China, add to that the One-Child policy, and you have a depopulation mess. Yes, China's blooming with people today. But can you imagine in a few decades?

There's a reason in the rest of the world, there's an even split between boys/girls. It's a necessary function of Human Ecology! Without an even divide, we'll literally bottom out.

Then there's China's Forced Sterilization


These same issues exist in India. So while they project a continual growth in India(largely due to India's youth), don't be surprised if the actual growth is tampered a bit.