Abortion should be illegal, except for cases where it is a threat to the mother's life.

Now, can you actually equate abortion and drunk driving, why are they fundamentally similar? Also you said you were okay with the morning after pill, correct?

Yes you can. Both are taking a risk, and both have a consequence.

Lots of things have risks and consequences. you’re not saying anything fundamental.

I oppose life in jail for ANY crime because I don’t want tax dollars feeding murderers and rapists.

Charging for manslaughter doesn’t make sense; if abortion was banned, abortionists wouldn’t perform abortions which means the female is going to have to perform her own abortion.

All abortions are premeditated.  1 in 6 women have gotten a premeditated abortion.  If you know 60 women, 10 of them about got a premeditated abortion.  But I don’t support making the penalty for abortion life in jail or the death penalty because it’s not pragmatic.

It is possible (and happens a lot) where you follow every rule for consensual sex and still end up pregnant.  Birth control reduces abortions; it doesn’t eliminate them.  YOU shouldn’t be having recreational sex.

Lots of things have risks and consequences. you’re not saying anything fundamental.

Yes, lots of things have risks and consequences. One of those things is sex. 

Are we agreeing?

Are you saying it should be illegal to walk down the street because you might get hit by a car?

So the women or girl is the one waving the cash around and the government/corporations are the robber in this analogy? I’m kind of confused. 

No.

I used that analogy to represent, that if you make bad decisions, bad things will probably happen to you. 

You’re using government coercion as the criteria of why abortion/morning after pill should be a bad decision. 

You haven’t argued why abortion/morning after pill are wrong in and of themselves.

 You’re just using the threat of the government as to why they should be wrong.

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 

Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children.

Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?

You haven’t argued why abortion/morning after pill are wrong in and of themselves.

Abortion is wrong, because it is the removal of a life. Is the removal of a life wrong? If so, then abortion is also wrong.

The morning after pill is a form of abortion, because at that point conception has already taken place, and a life has formed. 

 You’re just using the threat of the government as to why they should be wrong.

You started the argument on why the government should intervene, not why abortion is wrong. 

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.

Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.

You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 

Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children.

Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?

The only reason I am arguing government intervention, is because that is the only thing that you were trying to argue. You never once brought up or asked why abortion itself is wrong. 

Yeah, like alcohol prohibition back in the 20s. Lol

Your comparing alcohol to abortion??

Well, as long as murder is morally wrong the abortion is as well.

Do you cry every time you step on an ant? Do you really think the morning after pill is worse than the pork you eat? You have to give a better argument than that.

You’ve just been saying abortion is bad because the government should come for them.

Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it automatically and ethically wrong.

The point is valid. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it. Prohibition is a solid example of that.

I find this to be very dependant on what we deem alive. At what point do we determine a fetus is alive? Or are talking of the mere potential for life being equal to life?

Sorry let me rephrase. The morning after pill is a form of abortion, because at that point conception has already taken place, and a human life has formed. 

You’ve just been saying abortion is bad because the government should come for them.

Elaborate this sentence right here. I don't know if you just typoed this or whatever, but it makes no logical sense. 

Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it automatically and ethically wrong.

Yes, but so goes the same with legal things as well. There is a reason we make things illegal. With that logic, you could argue that everything should be legalized. 

How do you distinguish between an inherent value of a human life and the value you impose on it? And why are you for abortion being illegal except for cases where it is a threat to the mothers life? She chose to have sex, right? Assuming she didn’t get raped. 

That’s how I’ve viewed your argument. And I know it makes no logical sense. 

Yeah, so let’s leave the idea that illegal = bad and legal = good. 

 All human life is of value, correct? So why should we be able to kill babies in the womb, and not normal humans? What's the difference? 

As for the exception, when the mother's life is at risk, there is an exception because the mother could die as well. When you deny someone's right to live, then it becomes a problem. If you deny a mother who will die an abortion, that is what makes it wrong. So that is why that is an exception. 

You’ve just been saying abortion is bad because the government should come for them.

Elaborate this sentence right here. I don't know if you just typoed this or whatever, but it makes no logical sense. 

That’s how I’ve viewed your argument. And I know it makes no logical sense. 

So, your way of thinking and viewing things makes no logical sense?

Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it automatically and ethically wrong.

Yes, but so goes the same with legal things as well. There is a reason we make things illegal. With that logic, you could argue that everything should be legalized. 

Yeah, so let’s leave the idea that illegal = bad and legal = good. 

No, let's leave the idea that morally wrong = bad and morally good = good. 

The point is valid. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it. Prohibition is a solid example of that.

Yes, in some instances yes, but in others it does. How would you be able to prove abortion would be one of those instances where it doesn't decrease?

Yes it would decrease the abortion rate. It's common knowledge that when you make something illegal, the instances of that thing happening goes down. 

The child is alive at conception. That is where life biologically starts. The zygote is a human, whether you believe it to be or not. Saying that zygotes and fetuses aren't actually human beings, is like saying that tomato seeds won't aren't tomatoes. Tomato seeds are tomatoes, just a smaller and less edible version of one. 

There are plenty of situations where the baby can survive but the mother dies. You would still allow abortion in that case even though the mother chose to have sex (assuming she wasn’t raped)? You would be denying the babies right to live. Why would the mothers life be worth more than the babies in this situation?

The value of human life is circumstantial. It will always be that way. The extent in which we look at the circumstances will keep changing though. 

Also, does it really matter thinking that the guy who’s about to attack your family has value just before you blow his head off?

I was showing you how incoherent your view on abortion is.

So you are equating morality and legality?

Alright, abortion is automatically good then because it’s legal. 

I'm under no obligation to do so. You made the statement.

This was your assertion. The mention to Prohibition directly contradicts this. If you wish to assert that making abortions illegal would lower the abortion rate then you're welcome to prove that assertion. I'm not convinced and I outright disagree with your claim that making something illegal makes instances of that thing go down.

Got any way of supporting this with facts and evidence? Or is it simply your opinion?

you made the statement. "Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it."

If making things illegal doesn't make instances of that thing go down, then what's the point of having illegal things? Should we just let murder be legal, because after all, it won't make any difference, right?

As for your evidence you asked for:

State Facts About Abortion: California | Guttmacher Institute

Abortions in Texas by the numbers | The Texas Tribune

California, and Texas both have similar populations, yet abortion rates are higher in California, than in Texas. Why? Because abortion is illegal in Texas, and legal in California. 

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception (princeton.edu)

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

There you go. 

When is the embryo alive and

more pressingly when does personhood start?

You make things illegal to try and prevent people doing them. It doesn't always work. Prohibition is evidence of this.

And how accurate were these numbers in regards to illegal abortions in Texas? How many abortions happen that never get added to the published tallies?

I asked about life rather than if it was a human being. To elaborate on the position. When is the embryo alive and more pressingly when does personhood start?

When the viable fetus is birthed. 

There are plenty of situations where the baby can survive but the mother dies. You would still allow abortion in that case even though the mother chose to have sex (assuming she wasn’t raped)? You would be denying the babies right to live. Why would the mothers life be worth more than the babies in this situation?

No, in these types of cases, it would be the mother's choice on what happens because it is her life, and her baby's life. 

The value of human life is circumstantial. It will always be that way. The extent in which we look at the circumstances will keep changing though. 

Also, does it really matter thinking that the guy who’s about to attack your family has value just before you blow his head off?

A human life that has not even been given a chance, is not a circumstantial thing. 

As for your second point, difference is, even if I did nothing, someone would die. A baby in the womb isn't attacking anyone. 

I was showing you how incoherent your view on abortion is.

Everyone else seems to understand but you. 

So you are equating morality and legality?

Alright, abortion is automatically good then because it’s legal. 

Never said I was equating morality and legality. I was simply saying, how about we say things are bad, because they are morally bad, and vice versa. 

Even if she new the risks of having sex?

It is circumstantial. You just said it would be the mothers choice to murder a baby.

Even if she new the risks of having sex?

Yes, because she would have the choice between her life, and another life. It's not the same as killing a human baby just because you don't want it. It's a hard decision, but life always has hard decisions. 

It is circumstantial. You just said it would be the mothers choice to murder a baby.

It would be the mother's choice, when her life is at risk, not just for convenience. 

She chose to have sex though. She should be willing to die to birth a baby. 

You’re the one that’s arguing for convenience.