Comment: What is the sampling size -- bad statistics - bad argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: again you are wrong (see in situ)

What is the sampling size -- bad statistics - bad argument

your "source" links back to it's own organization -- it was 64% of those "polled" not 64% of the nation.

I took statistics from many sources and came up with a mean average of them all -- given that none of the sources were using the same poles I think it is drawing from a wider pool.

But I will agree to let go of statistics-makes-proof type arguing if you are -- because I'm not personally invested to go back and site all the sources, I pooled them into an excel doc and don't have the links.

Let's look at if from your conclusion:

"If I am pro-life (I'm assuming this is what you meant) I should want abortion to be illegal"

I don't want anything to be "illegal" -- I want a society that naturally puts a higher value on the life of children (potential consumers, savers, and entrepreneurs) and women -- as well as the elderly.

I believe that Mises argument for consumer-sovereignty if meditated on deeply enough can create a free-market wherein that happens (natural value).

In a Consumer-Sovereignty the producer and entrepreneur are 100% dependent on the consumer.

Profit-Bursts under Corporatism:

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Gov't Boom-Bust Interventionism

---The poor and middle class are spenders
---The wealthy seek to please the consumer and gov't
---Gov't Loans

Profit-Bursts under a Free-Society

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest

---The poor and middle class are savers
---The wealthy seek out "borrowing" from the poor and middle class
---The wealthy seek to please ONLY the consumer
---No Gov't Loans

Thus Consumer-Rule -- more importantly everyone in such a society has ever increasing (albeit slowly) returns on their savings -- Because the wealthy can only have dynamic returns from entrepreneurs and they can only borrow from the poor and middle class (predominate savers)

This type of society has near perfect reciprocity.

Thus to ensure lots of consumers, entrepreneurs, and lenders the wealthy would demand that the un-born and mothers be protected from poverty-decisions. This would include the % that is "forced"

It should be somewhat obvious that voting and lobbying are not part of said free-society (voting results in the circumvention of consumer-will and lobbying is bribery or the purchase of said politicians future votes).

Without voting and lobbying you cannot have things be illegal.

The best argument against you is that if YOU are for a free-market-society then you are for "PRIVACY" which means you will never know what procedures/solutions a doctor and their client come up with.

Abortions will be performed but they will be far far far fewer in number.