Why I'm Pro Choice

You got it.

More accurately, it's Anti-Choice.

My mind is full of fuck at the moment...

My fuck is full of mind at the moment.

HA. Alright, lets continue this in your ib topic, so we don't take this off topic too much :D

You can also put the child up for adoption. 'Cause, you know, that's an option for people who don't want to abort but can't afford one.

Yeah sure, that's a real great idea. not like there isn't enough children out there in adoption homes.

Done.
I'm not even for fighting the battle, drawing lines, or whatever. If every woman could be on the pill, then they wouldn't have to make the choice.

In my personal life, I'm against it. One part concern over the psychological implications (which are still being debated), and another is my fatalistic sense of responsibility. "I didn't get plan B. We should have both used control. It's my fault."
If the situation demands, than I would go for adoption. For the simple conservation of potential; one more of me to balance three more idiots.

From a political standpoint, I understand that the value "pro-choice" is too deeply ingrained to abolish surgical abortion. Not only do modern people equate it with woman's rights, but the procedure has real medical merit (the mother or the baby argument).

The very thought of innocent people condemning their own children saddens me. Let us educate and advance as a society, rather than stumbling and arguing over simple interpretation.

*Yes, I do see chemical (plan B) and surgical abortion as different. Perhaps my line is at implantation. Perhaps I just don't want to outlaw the regular birth control pill. Dunno.

Uh, Plan B is NOT chemical abortion. It's birth control. Medicinal abortion would be something like MTX or RU-486.

This is why we NEED more sex education in this goddamn country.

There'd probably be less if people would be smarter when they have sex. Regardless, I was pointing out that it was an option. Not the best, but hey, it's an option.

[font=verdana][color=green]You mean "moderate pro-choice". That's the term for a situation like that - only having an abortion because you have to, not just on whim. It's a similar view to what I hold - I believe abortions should only be granted when either the woman is at risk due to the pregnancy or when the foetus would suffer from sort of serious genetic disorder.

Ah, fair enough. the bold made it look like you were taking a shot >.>
But yes, very good point, would be less if people actually learned to be smart when having sex. Stupid teenage bogans.

As long as the abortion is done due to some serious reason (like Rape, for example) and it is not in the shape as baby, then I'm completely fine with it.

But, if it's 7th or 8th months already, I'd say no.
It's already alive and kicking, and you just killed it. Why not do it earlier?

I still believe it is a women's decision to decide for an abortion or not.

If she feels like aborting a child inside her because of rape then it is completely fine, but because of financial reasons is going a little too far in my opinion.

I agree, we definitely need more sex education in the US and other countries around the globe.

However I have one complaint, why do people never think about the risks when they are taking sexual intercourse?

I have nothing to say against the cases of rape, that reason alone is fine with me.

I am also pro Choice, but only to a certain degree such as rape and forced pregnancy.

Let the women decide if they want the baby.

Although, personally, if you chose to fuck without protection, you should live with the consequences.

The bold is to make me feel special. >_>

And yea, that's my main beef. I've said before I'm pro-life, but that's just my personal view. I may not agree with it, but I definitely don't hold it against someone if they feel like aborting is what they need to do. They're still stupid for getting pregnant in the first place, though. Just sayin'.

Thanks for nitpicking?

Along party lines, the right sees B in the same light. I, personally, know very little about the medical procedures, but with the advances in the field I would just label that "more options."

Please, in the future, take the time to call me a sentimental fool. Or, at least a "flip-flopper."
I maintain that reality is too grey to make one assertion or another. There was my personal opinion, and your right to manage your own affairs.

Edit:
I'm really sorry, man, I got so lost in the debate that I forgot your initial question.

I encourage absurdity in simile. The violinist was a great story, to illustrate why you feel the way you do. I would say it's a mediocre argument, but in real debate logical fallacy is one of your most potent tools. Might I suggest you use an unnamed STD instead? That one's usually a winner.

The first point assumes that the idea is universal. With a belief in equal ability, as well as rights, I wouldn't argue that the woman has a say in the matter. I also contend that the man has an equal stake in the matter.
...Don't hang up.

A friend of mine was finishing his army training, in Georgia. The weekend before we went on deployment, he spent the night with his girl, one last time. Around 2AM, so he tells us, he's doing his chick, and begins to feel a queer bit of pressure.
He lets it go, and keeps on.
After he gets off, he pulls out, and sees that the head of his condom has COME COMPLETELY OFF. SHIT LOOKS LIKE A PIG IN A BLANKET, AND HER SNATCH SWALLOWED IT ALL.
He freaks the fuck out. He's an E-3, and barely makes enough to support him and his drinking problem. He thought this relationship was casual. And, we're on order to be out of country for the next year.
---dramatic pause---
She lights up like Times Square. Not only was she lying about how serious she took the relationship, now she has a way for him to stay in her life. Bitch made a conquest (fanfare).

She tries to talk to him, says "It's going to be alright." etcetera.
He can't sleep.

The story ends with him doing something illegal, and her not being fucking pregnant. (It involved a Boston Cream doughnut.)

Point is, if a man impregnates a woman SHE is the only one with the right to abort. If she decides not to, he is now financially tied to two individuals for the next 18 years.
I propose that we create an opt-out clause. Should a man who cannot support a family want emergency contraception, but the woman disagrees, the woman must sign a document relinquishing the right to child support.

Nine months of temporary disability could ruin a woman's career or education. Being locked into a vocation, prematurely, could ruin a man's. Both have the capacity to be a single parent, causing economic hardship, and lowering the child's quality of life. And, both are obligated to financially support a child.

Actually, we should also begin drafting custody agreements for men. If the man doesn't want an abortion, but the woman does, he would also forsake the right to child support. The person in favour takes on primary custody, but also takes on primary financial liability.

Hi, just gonna point out here: you have to feed and shelter that thing for 9 months or more until that point.
That's an added cost (physically, mentally, and economically) even before giving birth. Not to mention the hospital bills for prenatal care, delivery, and the days following. Oh, and that you'll have to take time off of work/school and lose money.
How's that sound?

I'm sorry to inform you that it won't fly in courts.

That's something that's always bugged me about child support & Abortion. Only the woman has the right to decide the direction of a pregnancy. The male has also contributed genetic material (property) to the pregnancy, yet he is second class to the woman in the argument. If a male does not want a child but, the woman does, she now has the legal right to use force to deprive the man of property to suit her needs which often leads to abuse of the system by females who would rather leech off their ex husbands than seek gainful employment.

On the other side of the argument, if the woman does not want the pregnancy and the male does, he also does not have any say in the argument and his "property" can be destroyed without his consent.

The entire event treats the male like a second class citizen to the female. Before someone calls me a sexist or a misogynist, let me make one thing clear, I believe in equality which means that neither males nor females should be treated as second to the other in any situation (now get off your high horse). So while we may not have the technology to help the male in the second situation we can help the male in the first situation by allowing him to opt out of child support if certain criteria are met.

Abortion is a topic I really wouldn't touch wit a 10 foot pole, but what the hell. I'm neither pro-choice, nor pro-life, I'd say I am more along the lines of pro-"if we had a bit more self-control we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place". I found your post educational, but non-influential. One part of abortion I have a stance on is I do not think it is alright to have an abortion if the woman does nothing prior to try to prevent the pregnancy (like taking birth control pills or requesting that the sex partner wear a condom). Also, I know women who have had abortions, the less mature ones always used the "its my body" excuse, I asked another of my lady friends about that and she said "that is true, but its a rather juvenile excuse, most of the girls who say that want to justify something but not be held responsible for it".

But they are being held responsible for it. And they justify their decision...by making a true statement that they're allowed to do what they wish with their body. Also, why is it that women should be forced to have a baby if they were lazy about birth control?

If they don't want the baby, it's regardless an organism using their body to live and survive against their will.

Why is that justified because, "Hey, she was kinda lazy about preventing this. So she deserves to have her body used against her will."