You know, some people would call giving kids an opinion before they're old enough to form their own "indoctrination." Or, at least they would if you were to tell the kids something as outrageous as "homosexual behavior is a sin." But as long as you're giving them the "progressive" opinion, maybe it's not the same. Right? :P
(Here come the downvotes...)

That is a good point. Although whether a natural consequence is viewed as a punishment or not mostly depends on the person; I don't think such a law would necessarily make the child a punishment rather than a rehabilitation. The law doesn't give a couple a baby as ''punishment" for having sex; nature gives them the baby as a natural consequence. It's totally up to them whether they love or hate the child. Isn't it?

I agree. It depends on the situation. Not all guys are selfish jerks who just want you to look hot, sometimes they may actually be concerned.

Asia, actually. According to most experts.

Or maybe it wasn't as much about punishing the wicked as it was about saving future children from being born into wicked families where they'd have no hope of learning righteousness. Earth needed to start over.

I think the highest estimate I've ever heard was two million at that time. That seems a little high to me, but who knows. :P

God never drags anyone to hell, thank Satan for that. Everything God does is designed to bring people to Him. End of story. :)

Anyway, you're right. This has gone on long enough, and this isn't worth pursuing any further. You're only becoming more entrenched in your position, and I'm only becoming more entrenched in mine, so for both of our sakes let's be done.
I concede that you have a lot more social power and conversational control than I do, which would be commendable if it weren't misused. Unfortunately for many, social power is easily misinterpreted as intelligence or moral strength. Of course, you also have the advantage of an environment that agrees with you, while I have to try to make myself understood to an audience of at least 7 or 8 people who would probably down-vote me for breathing too hard. :P
For someone who so aggressively defends their ignorance with regards to the workings of rhetoric, you are very good at using it to your advantage (which isn't as odd as it probably sounds). I can't compete with that. I guess I'm just too “honest.” ;)

That's an interesting comment though ... about consequences. Yes, making abortion illegal would hurt people – especially those whose business it is. Whether it would actually hurt the women who seek abortions is a very complex question with many different answers that won't be agreed upon here, so let's not get into that. But permitting abortion hurts people too. Have you ever thought of that? Like my South African friend, and many others like him.
The point I was going to bring up earlier but didn't get around to is an argument I've heard several times about fighting poverty. It says, “what if the cure for cancer is hidden in the mind of someone who can't afford an education?” My thoughts are, what if the cure for cancer is hidden in the mind of someone who was aborted? It's basically the same. Humanity as a whole loses assets when abortions are performed. And, as I pointed out before, we may just be robbing innocent babies of their lives. That's a pretty serious consequence.

Allow me to clarify what should have been pretty obvious -- the only men I've defended are those who have been hurt. Those who love and care about their partners and their children, and therefore deserve a voice in issues that affect them. And those who are forbidden from having an opinion just because they are men.
I have spoken much more harshly against irresponsible men than I have against any woman. If you want me to defend women, we would have to carry our conversation over to a topic where the women are actually the victims. But as things stand, a woman can go ahead an have an abortion freely. She is not a victim of abortion, so how can I defend her in the context of an abortion debate? If she is the victim of rape or of the neglect of a selfish sexual partner, I will defend her viciously (although not to the point of absolving her of her own responsibility -- because that doesn't do her any favors).

Hold on a second -- did you just say that men "will never experience this issue"? I'm sorry, that is a blatant lie. I have a good friend in South Africa whose long-time girlfriend aborted eleven of his children without his knowledge, and it absolutely destroyed him. I've never seen a strong man like him reduced to tears like that, and I don't care to see it again. Sure, some men are shallow jerks who bang a hot girl then run from the consequences. But most men know how to love and are invested in the well-being of their partners and their children. This is not a women's issue, this is a human issue. The one lie I will not put up with is the claim that men don't deserve a voice.

Just to clarify (yet again), you're the one that called it "rhetoric." The simple truth regarding that is that if you don't understand rhetoric, then you are bound to fall victim to it (and indeed you already have). You only hurt yourself by dodging it and intentionally perpetrating your blissful ignorance, and I feel sorry for you.
When does abortion become a crime? I must be misunderstanding the question, 'cause I can only think of one real answer to it. Something becomes a ''crime" when we make it illegal. That's it. "Crime" is defined by the law book, and is subject to change. If you want a different answer please ask a different question that makes more sense.
As far as arresting people goes, I'll point out that not every violation of law warrants arrest, so I'm not sure where you're going with that either. If abortion were illegal, it would only make sense to arrest people that provide them. The specific penalties the woman should face isn't something I've thought about.

But, since you want an answer so bad, here's what I think: kinda like what I said as I explained why I won't argue that abortion is murder, there is a lot that we simply don't know. The key question behind the legal argument probably is whether the fetus is a living human being or not. Personally I think the science can only support the "pro-life" position, but I imagine the world will end before we come to any kind of agreement on that question. So right off the bat, we're stuck at a dead end. But since we have to make a decision, it seems like if there is any chance that human life is on the line, we should err the side of protecting it.
There was more I had in mind but I gotta bounce right now, so that'll have to suffice for now.

I'm sorry that "rhetoric" is not interesting to you. As a student of psychology I not only find it interesting but extremely important and applicable to these situations. But I suppose if you don't care whether your world views are accurate or not, that's your call.
Well, first let me point out two things: 1) I'm not the one with the primary responsibility to put law books together, nor am I obligated to have all the answers. 2) More importantly, the question of whether abortion is morally wrong and the question of legality are two different debates. I'm more interested in the first, because I don't like the way that we tend to insist that the government legislate our opinions into law, which people on both sides of the aisle are guilty of. I think the law book makes a pretty pathetic moral code, even if it was a perfect law book, so I don't usually think about legality when I think about ethical issues.

That's a good point saviourself, it is easy to demonize the opposition and trivialize their experiences and thought processes, and it's important to try and understand it from their point of view. But unfortunately it's always easier to see someone else making this mistake than yourself. Do you think you might be making the exact same mistake every time you use buzz words like "anti-choice"? Just an observation.
Being mindful of the propaganda we use on ourselves is one of the hardest things to do. On the "pro-life" side, people portray their opponents as whimsical and careless and heartless, which is not true. On the "pro-choice" side, people think pro-lifers are intrusive, misogynistic, arrogant jerks, which is equally untrue.
That's why I personally don't like the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" -- the words themselves are propaganda. But this kind of thing happens with every issue under the sun.

I can't answer that question, saviourself, because I never claimed that life begins at conception. Careful with the assumptions you make. Personally, I would not put my hand on a Bible and say that "abortion is murder." There are way too many abstract concepts and variable definitions, but more than anything else I simply don't see how anybody could make and adequately defend that claim, unless they use very basic definitions of "life," in which case the science alone would be more than enough to verify that abortion is murder. But because the definitions involved in that argument are incomplete and maybe even incorrect, I'm not going to make it.
I'm a little concerned about your comment though. I know (or at least hope) you aren't putting rape and a birth control failure on the same level, but that's what it sounds like. The difference between rape and consensual sex is still very distinct.