Di,

“All morals aside, if i slept with 50 men I would not have 50 babies. So who is putting their hands up to be dad?”

Simple - you should pay for the 50 DNA tests, and the matching male should be given the same choice as you claim. If he chooses against parenthood, the remaining participants should then be given a second chance in their original chronological lineup. The cycle should be repeated until both agree to be parents. Any new participants collected in the next cycle should retain their chronological order for the next round.

If you prefer a non-structured random approach, then each participant of the previous round should be given $20. If after sex you ascertain that a particular participant has no chance of making it to the next round, this payment should be immediate. It’s only fair.

Although you can opt in or out of either process, the key rule for either, is that BOTH must agree to be PARENTS – otherwise the chosen process continues.

I'm with you Di,I understand the arguments with pro-lifers are continuous tedium but you need to keep repeating and furthering the rights of women to make the choice about terminations because the ardent male politicians opposing abortion seem determined to do their damndest to put obstacles in the way.

Di
You don't want to get into another argument
You channel stats so it becomes a nonsense.
You nonchalently get pregnant and decide to abort.
You are like a handbag in the choice of life.
You happen to become pregnant.
You have no desire to be pregnant again.
You want sex
You have abortion
You have option.

You malign people, but I have often wondered why Australia has over double the abortion rate of some other comparable countries, and by some accounts, up to 50% of women are using no contraception at all, or relying solely on the male condom, and I have wondered why abortion clinics don’t require a referral from a doctor, and I have wondered why abortion clinics don’t call for reductions in the abortion rate, and I have wondered why “best interests of the child” is rarely mentioned by women when it comes to abortion etc, etc, etc.

Timkins, Australia's abortion rate is similar to other english speaking countries but about double the aborton rate of Germany, Denmark.
Could it be that European women have easier access to RU486 so they terminate potential pregnancies within days of conception. That is to say that use of RU486 after conception eliminates the need for a surgical procedure at 6-12 weeks thus lowering the abortion rate

Sand Between My Toes.
There could be a correlation between the number of surgical abortions and the use of abortion drugs, but whatever way abortion is carried out, it has to abide by abortion legislation, and at present, I cannot believe that very many abortions are being carried out according to much legislation.

Most of the abortion industry is being funded by the taxpayer, and in other countries, people have now found connections between various abortion clinics and organised crime, because there is such easy money to be made.

However countries such as Germany have low birth rates, and it could be because so many babies are being aborted (through some means or another). This is creating a worldwide dilemma, as various countries are relying on immigration to maintain population numbers. However finding skilled workers to immigrate into a country is becoming difficult, as one country begins to steal another country’s skilled workers, and the other country can justifiably complain about it.

If you look closely at the problem, I think you will find a correlation between birth rates and abortion, and a correlation between the number of de facto relationships or cohabitation, and the rate of abortion. That may give some clues on how to decrease the abortion rate, or decrease the rate of unwanted pregnancy, if that is what abortion advocates really want (but I somehow doubt it).

The best interests of the child and the abortion debate. Okay, try this one for size. In the recent book Freakenomics (I forget the authors name, sorry) the authors discuss the fact that the crime rate in the US has dropped like a stone since 1991 (from memory) which happens to be 18 years after the Roe v Wade decision, which gave American women -particularly poorer women - access to safe, legal abortions. Apparently the authors admit to their surprise at this relationship and searched for another explanation. They eventually had to accept that there is a relationship because, amongst other things, they found that US States that had liberalised their abortion laws earlier than Roe v Wade (a few did it 2 years earlier) had exactly the same drop in crime 2 years earlier.
Perhaps the old chant of "every child a wanted child" was right on the money. This phenomenon would seem to indicate that children born to poor, often single mothers who did not want them and could not cope with parenting, is often a disaster for all concerned. There are worse fates than to never be born, you know.