Many Abortion Opponents are Despicable, because they are in it for the money

"Despicable" is related to the word "despise". And many abortion opponents should indeed be despised, because they are "in it for the money" --meaning that they expect to get richer because they oppose abortion. Of course they won't admit it, and will make all sorts of alternate excuses, but the facts that support my claim begin with this (replace initial dots with standard web-address characters): htt.....ww.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp It is well known that many "political conservatives" oppose abortion. It is also well known that many of them also operate businesses, and therefore they know all about the Law of Supply and Demand. It is the majority of this specific group, the many business-operating opponents of abortion, who are despicable. This short Debate is therefore about most of that specific group only, and my opponent in this Debate must not reference any other group. To win this Debate, all that Con need do is either show that the Law of Supply and Demand is false (good luck with that!), or show how it doesn't actually apply in my argument that follows. To begin, please consider a very simple and stable "model economy". In this model, the population is stable and is adequately supplied with resources, mostly by recycling (energy can't be recycled like, say, copper). Everyone is employed, although some are employed as "employers of others". All types of "goods" that are produced are fairly priced, and all workers are fairly paid. There is no inflation; all money circulates. Nobody is getting richer and nobody is getting poorer. In some ways that is an impossibly ideal model economy, because human greed won't accept it. One of the fundamental propositions of economics is that people have unlimited wants, after all. htt.....ww.investopedia.com/university/economics/ As a result, just for example, an employer who has unlimited wants might decide to buy out all competitors. Doing this lets that employer control all the resources that become some particular type of goods. The employer can now fire some of the employees, causing fewer goods to be made. But the overall population, in that original model economy, still has the same demand as before, for those goods. The net effect is that prices rise and the employer gets richer. But that's not all! Those workers that were fired are now in competition with others for new jobs. Per the Law of Supply and Demand, an oversupply of workers causes wages to go down. Now the employer can get richer even faster, due to paying workers less, and because prices are higher. In general, such a process is called "creating artificial scarcity", and it actually happens in the real world. htt.....ww.pippinbass.com/Artificial-Diamond-Scarcity.asp It also tends to lead to new types of competition. In the case of the diamond market, some new mines were opened in Canada that were not controlled by the mostly-based-in-Africa diamond cartel. And perfect gem-quality diamonds can now be grown in a laboratory. However, in this Debate I've started off with a "model economy" in which such options are not available. Besides, you can be sure that in the real world, the diamond cartel could potentially, eventually, buy out both the Canadian mines and the diamond-growing labs, and once again create artificial scarcity. "Everyone has a price", goes the cliche. In other words, I'm not being completely unrealistic in denying new resources to my model economy. Getting back to that model economy, let us assume that no employer tries to corner some particular market. Let us instead see what happens when we add some more people to that economy, say by banning abortion.... Immediately the demand for various goods goes up, because there are more people who need those goods. However, if resources are fixed, as indicated above, then the Law of Supply and Demand causes prices to rise. And, eventually, as those extra people grow up and join the work force, they compete for jobs, causing wages to go down, also as previously mentioned. It should be obvious that this also is a way for employers to get richer, as a result of lower wages and higher prices. In general, those two things, population growth and attempts to corner markets, are the fundamental things that cause the rich to get richer, and everyone else (not just the poor) to get poorer. For evidence, just look at History. In Europe they had the Black Death at one point, that killed 1/3 the population of Europe, and pretty much destroyed the feudal/serf system of that time. It also left 3/3 the wealth/resources of Europe in the hands of 2/3 as many people as before; the "middle class" was born as a result. htt.....ww.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml The Black Death was the opposite of the population-growth thing that I described for that model economy; basically the poor got richer faster than the rich. When the Western Hemisphere was opened up to colonization by Europeans, vast quantities of many types of resources suddenly became available. The middle class grew, the poor still got rich faster than the rich, basically because resources were being produced faster than the population grew. Economic decline in the United States began roughly in the 1950s-1960s. Those were the beginning of the end of the days when one man's wages sufficed to support a family. Nowadays the wages of both parents barely suffice, and the middle class is shrinking; population has grown that much faster than resource-production in just the USA, to say nothing of the whole world. Meanwhile, business operators know all about the Law of Supply and Demand, and those who oppose abortion (plus those who try to corner markets) know full well it means they can get richer while everyone else gets poorer. They care not at all how the babies they want to be born must eventually scrabble to obtain poor-paying jobs, and fight for ever-more-restricted and higher-priced resources. All that most of the abortion-opposing business operators really care about, no matter what they claim, is getting richer. As far as I can figure, there is only one way members of that group can prove they aren't opposing abortion for the money. They must do everything they can to increase resource-production, faster than the population grows. Only then can they demonstrate they want the general population to get rich, also. A very few of them are indeed trying. The rest, the majority of business-operating abortion opponents, are just plain despicable!