Abortion is ethically justifiable

Im going to do a psychological analysis on your response It seems very angry "I'm really, really disappointed Solarman" Are you angry at me for my complete support of life ? Are you insecure about your position for death and dehumanization of the baby? Lets look at your statements "I thought for sure that you'd have some arguments to make." I made alot of arguments you havent addressed any of them here they are in summary format (1) Life is sacred and begins at conception (2) Roe is bad law and should be overturned- it is a states rights issue (3) babies are wanted and thus should not be killed (4) the death proponents are either misguided or evil. (5) the birth mother should be incentivized to keep the baby (25-30K$) and this should be paid by the adoptive parents (6) being pro-abortion puts you on the side of "people are bad and there should be less of them" - which is a false position- more people = good! NEXT POINT You COMPLETELY ignored my ENTIRE post. This is unforgivable Hmmm. again you seem to be angry with me. NEXT POINT life (or moral significance to me more careful with out language) does not being at conception because it is a logical fallacy to treat an entity like what it shall become instead of like what it is. you argue that 20 weeks is when human beings should be protected from harm and not be able to be aborted? Where do you come up with that arbitary point? Why not 21 or 19 ? Are all babies the same in this regard? and how are you going to deal with the "unfair" argument from a woman who didnt get there in time, or changed her mind after? The important point here is you DONT support infancticide nor, later term abortion- CORRECT? That means that you are, like the court tried ineffectively, to argue that at some ARBITRARY time when the baby is in the womb, life begins. BEFORE THAT , it is NOT a life, according to you. It can thus be KILLED before your arbitrary date which is impossible to enforce or really exactly determine. NEXT POINT But if by spirit you mean soul, let me ask you something: what do we do with the case of identical twins. In this case, the egg is fertilized and THEN splits. Do they each have half a soul? does only one have a soul? Do they share a soul? All the options are absurd because the position is absurd Absurd? to argue that we have souls that exist before, during, and after the body is inhabited is absurd? that there is a continuum of life that is unbroken despite the body is absurd? I think to NOT believe this is absurd, and I beleive the Tibetans have sufficiently proven REINCARNATION and REBIRTH So let me correct myself. the BODY or BODIES, temporary vessels for soul(s) begin one microsecond after the sperm and egg meet, and this is cosmic force much greater than the body. NEXT POINT I defended that even if the fetus is a full person, in similar situations we would not argue that a person must take care of it. You need to clarify this statement. What "similar situations" do you refer to ? Clearly, once a baby is BORN, you as the parent are required to care for it, and the baby will be taken away if you are negligent, as society is reponsible for the care and protection of its children. NEXT POINT pro-life means that sexual reproduction is evil. Im not sure if you are old enough to have really loved, but I hope someday you know what is like to have a great woman be totally committed to you and love you unconditionally. Sex is one of the greatest and most fabulous ways to express deep love for another being and to become one. Making a child is literally becoming one, and is the highest of high. SEX is really the core of the argument about ABORTION The PROPONENTS of abortion, especially the men, are arguing for sexual licentiousness in general. there arent many celibate people out there pushing abortion Sex without consequences. there ARE consequences to uncommitted sexual relations. negative ones. Sexually transimitted diseases death, spiritual and physical unwanted pregnancy insecurity jealously degrading of the great and sacred role of the woman the proponents of "free sex", NOT TO BE CONFUSED with "free love", aim to do different things, depending on who they are (1) alleviate the guilt they feel for their "sins" and bad karma (2) try to make societally acceptible unhealthy sexual practives and lifestyles (3) try to eliminate social morays and the family - this is right out of the communist handbook http://www.podval.org... The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. Communist Manifesto THE ONLY SAFE SEX IS WITHIN A COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP Far from sex being wrong or evil, we conservatives think it is GREAT and one of the best things life has to offer! OH YEAH ! NEXT POINT Since you have kids and probably reproduced sexually, I find your lack of contradiction curious at best and aggravating at worse. Huh? this is a nonsensical statement NEXT POINT Under this light, your comments about adoption are not relevant How is adotion NOT relevant??? the fact that the BABIES ARE WANTED is a CRITICAL POINT * address my point about the mother being incentivized to keep the baby please SUMMARY Life begins at conception, the soil and spirit are a contiuum We should AFFIRM life and that all people are wanted and are sacred Roe is bad law and should be overturned The consequences of abortion are NEGATIVE on society Destruction of life is UNETHICAL and AGAINST the HIPPOCRATIC OATH