Erroneous.
A law exists today outlawing the sociological behavior of murder of post-natals.
The law needed to be in effect because without the threat of penalty, which is why the law exists, to proscribe penalty for the sociological violation, moral relativistic utilitarians would simply do whatever they wanted, commiting murder and other atrocities.
Laws against murder are not "draconian", as you histrionically allege.
Laws are there to remind the lowest common denominator of society that they must behave themselves.
Extending the law against murder to include the murder of pre-natals will clearly remind the LCD, as well as others who may situationally imagine they are above respecting the right to life of all human beings, that there are penalties for such haughtiness.
The law and its penalty prevents violation ... which prevents people from being murdered.
It works, and it's a good thing.
Erroneous doomsday fantasy.
I haven't asked for more prisons. There weren't be more people made wards of the state.
That's strictly your ODD-based fantasy, Mare.
People will obey the scientifically revealed backed law.
Even the lowest common denominator among us will obey it.
The payoff of abortion is simply far too low compared to incarceration.
The law will be voluntarily obeyed by all but a tiny exception.
There's no need to build new prisons.
There's no need to provide wards for children.
But, even in your social doomsday scenario, the right thing to do is to pass and uphold the law banning the murder of pre-natals, no matter what.
I'm pretty sure that, given the if-then consequences that are sure to pass because the law is backed by science, you'll find very little violation.
Ah, but you miss the point about the difference between education without penalty for wrongdoing and education with penalty for wrongdoing.
In the former, the requested behavior is presented as optional.
In the later, when law and penalty accompanies request and education, the requested behavior is presented accurately as mandatory.
The right to life of pre-natal people must be respected. That is mandatory.
When making a change-over such as this, it is important from the get-go to remind people that the set of those who can be murdered has significantly increased, and therefore the law and penalty gets people's attention, reminding them to do the right thing by pre-natal people, or else.
The law makes doing the right thing mandatory, not optional.
The law is required, as all similar laws were in the past.
This is so obvious, the only thing that rationally explains why you didn't realize this for yourself is that you've yet to accept the scientific reality of the personhood of the newly conceived to thereby give their right to life the gravity it deserves.
Erroneous and irrelevant.
I accepted your scientific presentation on the matter of transsexuality ... and I verified with links of my own choosing.
Once you presented the science of it to me, I followed up, and I didn't challenge you on the science of it after that ... and indeed, I never challenged you on the science of it before. You obviously have me confused with someone else.
But that's irrelevant.
The science in this matter is air-tight, you've accepted it (you're implying), and now it's time to move on to it's logical repercussions.
Erroneous and irrelevant.
Your if-then conclusion is false for a number of reasons, but foundationally because your if-premise is false.
Erroneous.
Re-read, this time for comprehension, Mare ... though you likely understood it the first time, and you've simply employed here a lie-based cheap shot.
You can do better, Mare.
Good -- it's important that the obvious scientific reality is grasped by even pro-abortionists.
Well then, since you grasp the science, and since you are bothered by people owning other people's bodies, then you must logically conclude that the mother also doesn't own her pre-natal offspring's body either. 
... 
If everyone had respect for the right to life of everyone, no matter where everyone lives, the world would be the place you probably want.
But not everyone does.
So laws are necessary to protect people from moral relativistic utilitarians who could care less about the very life of others.
