There is plenty of blame to go around. I will say, unequivocally, that people who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford are partly to blame, as are the banks and lending institutions that actually loaned out the money, as are the institutions that subsequently purchased those mortgages. However, the lowering of interest rates to unsustainable levels, leading to a fall in the dollar and a housing bubble, the constant push from the government to lower lending standards in order to grant loans to sub-prime markets(The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977), and the implicit bail-out for those institutions that fail, had an undeniably larger effect.

   To say, as Barack Obama has, that deregulation is the culprit in the financial market meltdown speaks to his ignorance of economics. In other words, Obama thinks that the federal government isn’t involved enough in the financial markets.

   If you start with the Department of the Treasury website you will find a litany of organizations, governing bodies, and statutes that currently regulate all aspects of the financial markets, such as:

      Federal Reserve Board

      Security and Exchange Commission (SEC)

      Bureau of Public Debt

      Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)

      Financial Management Service (FMS)

      The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)

                  -Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

                  -Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

                  -National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)

        -The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

        -Office of Thrift Supervision

      Statues and Regulations including:

                  -Sale of Treasury Securities

                  -Auction Regulations

                  -Collateral Eligibility and Valuation Regulations

                  -Government Securities Act Regulations

                  -Redemption Operations Regulations

                  -Treasury Direct Regulations

                  -Savings Bond Regulations

   During a speech made on financial-market overhaul “Obama [called] for extending commercial banking regulations to investment banks, hedge funds, and mortgage brokers. He called for a commission that would monitor threats to the financial system.” All this according to the September 16^th edition of the Wall Street Journal,

   It seems glaringly obvious to me that the government should step away from private business, including financial institutions, and let the market decide a host of things that are currently under heavy regulations. When you let the market decide who should receive a loan, and at what rate, you can take the government’s responsibility out of the equation, let failures fail and winners win, and take the taxpayer off the hook…like it or not.

  Not painful for John McCain apparently. Quite the contrary, Senator McCain looked poised, calm, friendly, confident, spry, and was obviously in his element. He was funny and personable and did not let the fact that he was being debated, not interviewed, by four women who couldn’t disagree more with his policies and have, I believe, a genuine dislike for the man, fluster him.

  Barbawa Wawa started with a descent question, but of course didn’t let John McCain answer. Truthfully, would you? It is obvious that the Senator from Arizona is more than comfortable in this type of forum (one major reason Obama has refused to debate him in a town hall-type atmosphere) and made Wawa look rude, ignorant, and combative. As a matter of fact, at one point the former journalist basically called Senator McCain a liar.

  When discussing the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, John McCain implied that he would appoint “Strict Constitutionalists.”

                     “Should I be worried about being a slave…?” asked Whoopi Goldberg.

  I’m sorry, what? Hmm? Did I hear that right? A slave? Really, did she just ask that?

  Yes, Whoopi is afraid that if John McCain appoints “strict Constitutionalists” to the Supreme Court, that she may be forced into slavery. Yeah, that makes sense. The pessimism of the left has surprised even me in this instance.

  No, no softball questions for the Senator, and rightfully so. However John did very well in answering those questions honestly (leading up to this, Hasselbeck asked for his opinion on Roe v. Wade) and did not worry about a negative audience reaction and surely did not soften his views based on the views of the room. That, my friends, is called integrity (Obama, look it up).

  I have to admit, that was enough for me. I couldn’t watch anymore, but I would like to express my thoughts on Whoopi’s outlandish statement. 

  At NO point was slavery constitutional. Frederick Douglass, a former slave turned abolitionist, wrote in, I believe all three of his autobiographies, that the Constitution itself called for the end of slavery. When a man who, firsthand, suffered the injustices and ungodly acts of slavery can come to that conclusion, it is utterly deplorable to see a free, rich, and celebrated black woman, over 100 years later, make a statement to the contrary.

  Now, whether the Constitution was strictly followed (as it pertains to slavery) for another eighty-nine years is obvious, but the point is this: we now have a sound bite that explicates how liberals feel about our founding documents. Conservatives have long espoused the view that liberals have a disdain for the Constitution (why else would they want to butcher it with rulings such as Roe v. Wade?) but have always been told that these fears were unfounded and based on scare-tactics and lies.

  To say that a return to constitutionalism is a return to slavery is mind-boggling and I hope that people on the left will have the courage to distance themselves, not just from the statement, but also from the idea that our country institutionalized slavery with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. “That all men are created equal” is a statement of pure beauty, intellect, courage, and boldness that the world hadn’t, and has not since, seen…like it or not.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Why should I police a site?

What does it matter?

Who does it hurt to just let it go?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (January 14, 1892 – March 6, 1984)

J: This is true [Gods grant of inquisitive minds], but my point you missed here is in each of these situations we make a choice to use these technologies or not. [My wife] does not have to have an epidural if she does not want, my parents do not have to have by-pass or angioplasty, etc., if they do not want to. These a re not mandated. We choose if we want these things or not. In the instance of racism and slavery; I think this is separate. Slavery was a social issue, abortion is a personal issue, as I see it. Yes, as citizens of the world aw all should do something to protect the civil liberties of people. And in these instances, abortion would fall into the civil liberty category. In my defense, I am standing up for the civil liberties of women and couple’s to make their own decisions about this topic. Ultimately, it’s about choices, good or bad, right or wrong.

J: The person making the choice is directly affected.  If I chose euthanasia, my very existence is affected. If a woman chooses abortion, she is directly affected, but also these early stages of life.  By my logic slavery would be outlawed because force or threat of force was used to exploit a race of people.  In the abortion scenario, force or threat of force is not used.  Until they start lining up women and forcing them to have abortions, it is not a social issue.  As for rights, Roevs. Wade says abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. And according to Webster, rights are a legal guarantee. Since it is legal, though to an extent, women do have the right.  Moreover, because a right it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. You know this. The Constitution does not detail every little thing. In my mind an abortion is not the same as criminal acts. By your logic, I take, that you should also play a sizeable part in the upbringing and caring of children whom would have other wise been aborted. Is this true?

“Do you propose any woman that has had an abortion be punished?” Yes, if it can be proven and she is given her Fifth Amendment rights.   Intent and motive must be proven, like all deaths leading to a homicide investigation.

H: When life becomes relative anything is possible:  You like having sex with kids?  Its all relative.  You like to rob people?  Property is all relative.  You like to rape women?  "No" is such a relative term.  You don't believe Jesus was crucified?  It's okay; you’re still a Christian, relatively speaking. There are no beliefs.  There is no right and wrong.  There is no evil and there is no good.  No God, no Devil.  When moral relativity reigns supreme everything can be explained away, including all bad behaviors.

You can be wrong.  As can I.  If I am proven wrong, oh well.  If you are proven wrong it will be at the defense of women who kill children to make their lives easier.  You are a fool's fool. If there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can you disagree with those who use it as birth control?  It is their choice, their money, and her body.
"At what point is a fertilized egg not apart of a women's body?  I think it is not apart of her body at birth and the cord is cut." 

So at nine months, at a live birth, a baby can be killed, as long as the cord hasn't been cut? Can the whole body be out of the womb, or just part of it?  What about a c-section?  If the baby is born premature can it be aborted after the cord is cut?  Chances are it will have a machine keeping it alive anyway, like my brother.  That's not really "alive," right?  If you close your eyes and never actually see the baby, you could probably kill it the next day.  It's your choice.  Matter of fact, if you have a girl, but really wanted a boy, just send her, or it, sorry, down the river. Or abort her early, like they have been doing in India.  Girls have cooties anyway. I'm going to encourage black women to abort, to take care of the welfare problem and crime problem in the black community.  I'll talk to Jews, non-Catholics, Muslims, midgets, any every one without blonde hair and blue eyes, to do the same. Oh well, it's just a "product of conception," a "mass of cells," or even a parasite when you think about it.  It's all relative.

J:Exactly! How then do you change people's thinking? How do you make people understand? Can I/we transform this mentality? Possibly, but people will hold to their truths. If one's truth is abortion is a right then it is no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise it is a right.  Like you and I now. No matter what we say to each other, we still have opposing views. I think we all carry moral relativism to some extent, our understanding of life is all based on our perceptions of reality/morality, etc..  This is why I believe it boils down to personal choice. I cannot make one believe my beliefs. We generally act based on our beliefs. Even if one thought abortion was wrong, does that mean it will not be used?

 "If there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can you disagree with those who use it as birth control.  It is their choice, their money, and her body." This is true, it is their choice, but my belief is having consistent abortions (say 6) vs. using birth control methods to prevent pregnancy in the first place. That crosses a threshold for me. But ultimately it is her choice, her life, her body. And I have no say on how she decides to live her life and treat her body. "If the baby is born premature can it be aborted after the cord is cut?  Chances are it will have a machine keeping it alive anyway." If a baby is born premature, it becomes the mother's decision whether to keep the child on "life support."  If she chooses not to, then she is a murderer by your standards.  But my truth would be she is letting nature take its course. 

You can read the rest here if you are still awake. By the way, “prefatory” is my new favorite word.

H: Being against abortion is not like being against an economic policy or drug policy. It is completely illogical to be against abortion, or to think it is wrong in any way, but not want it outlawed. What makes it wrong [in your eyes]? If you believe it is the ending of life, there is a moral obligation to outlaw it.

J: I believe it is like being for/against and economic policy or drug policy. My issue, personally, is I don’t know if “life” beings at conception. For one, a fertilized egg does not always equal a live birth. [HvySlpr], we are just on opposing sides on this one.

H: An abortion never ends in a live birth.

J: That’s not what I mean. A woman can have a fertilized egg in the uterus, but in some cases the egg is releases thru menstruation and sometimes miscarriage occurs.   In those instances, would the same response [from you] occur?

H: If the woman did that on purpose (i.e. drank alcohol to abort) I would investigate just like any other homicide; motive, murder weapon, intent, etc. Obviously that would be hard to prove, but it would be proven sometimes. Abortion is an intended act. An accident, by definition, could not be abortion. I do think that both cases are tragic, yes.

J: [T]his is why I question the numbers too, because for sometime a miscarriage was reported as abortion, I can’t remember the exact time frame. I know what you are going to say, “the number is still large despite some discrepancies.” Also, think of this scenario in regards to life: a person is on hospitalized and connected to a respirator; they only can “live” on this machine… is that “life.”

END MAY 8, 2008 - BEGIN MAY 9, 2008

H: I don’t know why anyone, especially a professional, would characterize a miscarriage as an abortion. Again, abortion is the purposeful and premeditated act of ending a pregnancy and a miscarriage is an accidental death due to extenuating circumstances beyond her control. Don’t get me started on euthanasia; a purely selfish task done to rid people of guilt and burden. Even so, dying on a respirator (euthanasia) and being killed (abortion) are two totally different things. I would venture to say that 100 years ago, many people were buried alive because of poor technology, and many babies born to term died as well.   I have a horrible feeling that we think technology has past our morality; that when a machine says “your dead,” that’s all we need. To define when life ends and to witness it are two different things, the same goes for the beginning of life. We are relying on what are eyes can “see” instead of what may be there. If it was my call, err on the side of life…always.

J: The question is not about the difference between euthanasia and abortion. But my question is what “life” in beginning and ending stages is. I believe it is arbitrary. If a machine is keeping someone alive, is that truly “life?” I can’t say it is. Just because an egg is fertilized, is that “life?” I can’t say that is either.

H: Err on the side of good judgment and life. [Name] is a paraplegic who can’t chew his own food or go to the bathroom unassisted. Is that “life?” We wouldn’t kill him, would we? When life, or the definition of, becomes arbitrary and meaningless, anything is possible. When life is given a rating on usefulness, we are in trouble. That type of thinking is what started eugenics projects in Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. The most logical definition says life begins at conception. There is no moral or scientific reason to believe it begins anywhere else. The only arguments for life beginning after conception are purely political, reeking of moral relativity and linguistic semantics. Life ends with zero brain, heart, and lung activity, without the possibility of resuscitation. This is obviously more difficult and arguably changes with technology. Again, when there is a question, err on the side of life. Can you honestly say, using logical arguments not based on political leanings or pressures, that those statements are faulty?

J: Honestly, I can’t say. You’re asking me to give you an answer to questions that I’m not sure I have and absolute answer for. I see your point, but don’t know if I agree. The issue here is; we are having different understandings of what “life” is. I am not arguing about value of life, any and all life is valuable. But what constitutes “life” in the beginning and ending phases? I think in this discussion/context that you and I have subjective views of “life.” Is it wrong that we think differently about these issues? I say no. And I can’t say if there is an objective view of what constitutes “life.” In this instance, it is life. He can’t function in a “Normal” sense, but his vital organs function without outside assistance, so it is life. I’m getting the impression that if a woman does not produce life from a fertilized egg without an abortion or intentional harm it is death or murder. It is also murder when a machine can assist with vital organs and it is not used? Am I correct in assessing that?

H: You don’t have an absolute answer to the afterlife, but you believe in Christ, God, heaven, the crucifixion, etc. You have faith. A man who believes in god, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool. A man who believes in nothing, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool’s fool. Such is the question of where life begins and ends. Better to err of the side of good judgment, is it not? Even if you don’t have as strong an anti-abortion view as I, you can argue that it may be the taking of an innocent life, and therefore should be avoided where possible. [Name] cannot sustain life without his breathing machine or feeding tube. The muscles he needs to breathe, chew, and swallow are largely paralyzed. The machine is keeping him alive. We can see [Name], talk to him, and hear him speak. That is why we haven’t “pulled the plug.” A person who chooses freely not to be hooked up to a machine (DNR) is probably hypocritical at best, stupid at worst, however, they are taking their own life into their own hands. Negligence on the part of others (doctors, nurses, loved ones, etc.) can and does constitute murder or manslaughter in some cases. Death and murder and not synonymous, as kill and murder are not synonymous.

J: You keep using “to err on the side of good judgment.” This is different for each of us. What you believe is good judgment; I may not view as good judgment. For the sake of this on-going debate, I will say “it may be the taking of and innocent life,” but ultimately this decision (abortion) is a personal choice. And the Good Lord did give us free will. Do you propose any woman that has had an abortion be punished? The scary truth is, many women have decided this, some you probably wouldn’t think, but it happens. The fact is, I believe it is the woman’s/couple’s decision to decide and I will not judge them for that decision.

END OF PART 3

H: Fourteen to eighteen percent of the U.S. population is black. Fifty percent of abortions are given to blacks. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood’s facilities are in minority neighborhoods. Blacks rightly get upset to see a disproportionate amount of liquor stores and gun shops in their neighborhoods. Why should this be any different? http://www.laadvocate.com/Advocate3.pdf . Their “services” are not specifically marketed towards blacks, that is true, but a disproportionate amount is given to blacks, and one of the founders was an open racist who wanted to diminish the “negro” population, and said so openly. There are reports that blacks are steered toward abortion, rather than adoption, at a disproportionate rate. Also, undercover investigations have revealed cover-ups for child abuse and statutory rape cases, along with the racist cases I mention in my blog. Eugenics is a scientifically faulty theory and completely unachievable. Even the people who subscribe/ed to it (progressives in the early part of the twentieth century, Hitler, Stalin) couldn’t come up with a “perfect” being by their own definitions.

H: By the way, you keep saying “couple.” A man has NO rights when it comes to abortion. Another example of how abortion is about power and control.

J: Because couples do make these decisions together sometimes. The man does have a say, sometimes.

H: You can’t be pro-choice and think that the man should, or even does, have a say. Look it up.

J: I’ve been looking up info. and, according to the CDC, abortion rates are declining across the board. It did show blacks were “3x likely to have abortions compared to whites and Hispanics 2-2.5x likely compared to whites.” But whites make up 54-60% of all abortions in the U.S. Also interesting; until 1989, blacks and “others” were grouped together, so total estimates may be off for total abortions for blacks since seventeen years of data is summed into the “black” category.

H: Most of that information was, and is still, voluntary for some states, as far as reporting abortions, and the reasons for. If anything, there are/were more abortions than reported. Abortions on blacks are 34% or so, twice their population percentage.. Abortions have been around for A LOT longer than 17 years. These numbers are estimates, but even if they are cut in half, abortions kill more blacks that anything else. Liberals have been encouraging abortions, sometimes as a form of contraception (listen to 105.9 tonight), and encourage women to exercise their “right” and liberate themselves sexually. There is nothing okay with abortion in by book, and I don’t have children. By brother [Name] was pretty open to abortions until he saw his first ultrasound. He is convinced that if people bothered to look at 3-d ultrasound [imaging] abortions would cease, which is probably why PP refuses to do it. Apparently education and information are not apart of their program.

J: I know abortions have been around for a very long time but since records began in 1972 there is some distortion in figures, since a break-down did not begin until 1989. As I stated before, I totally am 100% against abortion as a method of birth control, especially continual visits to abort. In my book it is a right, I will say I don’t agree with advertising to exercise her right to abort. Getting preggo and having abortion after abortion is wrong. But I still have to say, in the end, it is the woman’s/couple’s choice. These Women are not being marched up to clinics and gun point and forced to have abortions. These are choices they make and I have no say over the choice someone makes for themselves, whether I agree or not.

END MAY 7, 2008   END OF PART 2

BEGIN MAY 6, 2008 – Blog distributed

J: What is the truth here? I don’t’ know which side to believe.   There’s no doubt racism still exists. I don’t know what to say.

H: What sides are you talking about? Planned Parenthood has acknowledged the people on these recordings work for them.

J: Have they? That was unclear to me. It’s the internet; anyone could post fake/exaggerated material. As for PP, it doesn’t surprise me. They’re a “business.” Funds supporting their “business” is a major priority. That’s the way the game is played these days. Few have morals or ethics; it comes down to the bottom line. PP claims that only (approximately) 3% of its services are for abortions. This does not negate the recordings, but it raises a lot of questions.

H: Most states require a record to be kept. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a liberal sex-ed and research org. (actually Naral links the website on their home page), but it keeps pretty decent stats (like the fact that incest, rape, and health of the mother make up only ~4% of all abortions). To Planned Parenthood, there is nothing wrong with abortion. They will only take action in this case because of the negative press and racist association, not because what they are doing is reprehensible. Margaret Sanger is not someone they run away from. Google her name and you will find websites made just to fawn over her “accomplishments.” P.S. If only 3% of the population was killed, nine million lives would be lost. That is more than the entire U.S. Jewish population.

J: You are correct. PP is in the business of giving abortions, this is their “purpose,” so why would they think something is wrong with it? By its nature, PP is pro-choice. And yes the negative and racist exposure will probably cause them to do something because again this may affect its image and funds, which it all boils down to. You know I can’t really get mad. This is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please. All I can do is what is best for me and my family. Personally, I am pro-choice. It is the woman’s/couple’s decision. The woman/couple have to still deal with their decision(s) for a lifetime.

H: Less “funds”, more “image.” If they were a pure business, and not a political movement, they wouldn’t need millions of dollars in donations every month, and they wouldn’t be giving away so many free services. They are in this business to advance a political agenda – that agenda just got exposed – eugenics.

H: One, life cannot logically begin anywhere but at conception. Two, the taking of a life for personal gain is unacceptable. How can you be pro-abortion or “pro-choice” as the P.C. crowd has dubbed it, and accept these two premises? It is illogical to say that taking life is bad (murder, genocide, manslaughter) and then say “it’s up to [the woman]” when it comes to abortion. Abortion is the ending of life; a yet unborn life, but a life. People often ask “How could Hitler have killed all those Jews?” The citizens of the world probably said; “this is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please. All I can do is what is best for me and my family.” I am very libertarian when it comes to private business, but when your private business breaks thousands of years of accepted moral and legal code, it must be stopped by force. Freedom is NOT anarchy.

J: I have to say; I believe there is a difference between Hitler’s genocide or any genocide vs. a woman’s/couple’s right to abortion. Abortion is a personal choice that should be made by individuals/couples, whereas genocide is somewhat “forced.” Citizens are not being “forced" to have or not have abortions, there is a choice. On the other hand, if I was told or forced to do something I didn’t believe in, than I would stand up. Decisions about abortion become/is: “This is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please.  All I can do is what is best for me and my family.” I meant this quote to apply to personal issues, not larger societal issues. Our choice to have an abortion is none of society’s business, so to speak. But a plot to destroy a race of people or impede on civil liberties should become everyone’s problem.

END OF PART 1

YouTube has plenty of recordings from multiple sting-type operations.

These outward racist statements shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Planned Parenthood was co-founded by Margaret Sanger, a racist and eugenicist who said; “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”

Since 1974, abortion has killed more blacks than AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease…combined. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S. and 78% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

The question is; why hasn’t this story been everywhere? This type of genocide should be on the front of newspapers and the leading story on our 9 o’clock news. I have a theory; abortion is seen, not only as a right, but as a sacred act, not to be belittled, degraded, criminalized, or stigmatized. The only acceptable position is “pro-choice.” To be against abortion is to be against a supposed reproductive “right.”   Hopefully this story opens some minds and informs people about the racist beginnings of this organization and the disgusting act done there…like it or not.

P.S.

I find it interesting that when I ask how somebody how he or she feels about abortion, he or she, when ill-informed, undecided, or without strong opinion, usually says “I think a woman has the right to choose,” or something of that nature. 

This is an interesting answer for a couple of reasons; first, it doesn’t answer the question about abortion, just about his or her feelings on the legality of the act, and second it shows just how the argument and discussion about abortion has been framed. To be against abortion, or even question the “right,” is to be anti-woman, ant-constitution, and anti-reproductive rights. If you can frame the debate about the legality, the morality is never rationally discussed. Furthermore, if you can frame the language (fetus, zygote, and product of conception, while scientific terms, dehumanize the baby) you can control so much of the debate.

When I tell people that I think abortion is disgusting, should be criminalized, even in the case of incest or rape, should not be federally funded, and believe abortion is the ending of human life, I am stigmatized as “extreme,” even by people who would personally never have an abortion. What I haven’t been told is that I am being illogical. I’m just being mean. 

I want someone to disprove my logic; Life begins at conception and the premeditated act of ending life should be investigated and criminalized according to the law.

You must ask yourself these very important questions;

Am I for or against the act of abortion, without regard from my feelings of the legality of the procedure?

Am I against abortion except in “extreme” cases (usually incest, rape, and “health of the mother” clauses)? What logical reason do I have for this belief? Is it an emotional or a rational argument for a pro-abortion stance for these circumstances? Does it just seem compassionate?

Also:

Is there any other scientific or moral explanation for when life begins, other than conception?

Should a premeditated act of ending life be criminalized?