Contraception is widely available.
There's no such thing as "accidental" pregnancy, only irresponsible sex partners.

You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception, and the more forms used together the more unlikely (e.g. pill plus condom beats either alone).

You *cannot* get pregnant from oral, anal, masturbation, frottage, homosexuality or sex toys.

You can *only* get pregnant with a penis ejaculating into your vagina when you are fertile!

Can this happen accidentally?

"Abortion's a woman's right because it's *her* body", they say.

No, a foetus has its own DNA, so *cannot* be part of her body.

Irrespective of how long it's been inside her (one minute or nine months), it's not "her".

This is the cause of morning sickness and miscarriages.
Her immune system doesn't recognise the tissue as her own and *attacks* it!

Oddly, the people supporting the death of 70,000 or more potential Australians every year are often the same people who argue we need to import hundreds of thousands of migrants for "economic" reasons.

We kill our own people. Then import somebody else's. Absurd!

About the same number of people emigrate as are aborted.
The new children would replace the emigrants in roughly equal numbers.

So without abortion and without immigration, our population size would be *stable*.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb09.pdf
http://www.immigration.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/05emigration.htm

Babies are just beginning life.
Most immigrants are at least a third of the way through their lifespan.
Choosing immigrants over babies actually contributes to the aging of the population.

Does the woman have to raise the child?
No, fosterage and adoption are "choices" too.
(Notice how pro-choice only ever means "pro-abortion", never "pro-fosterage" or "pro-adoption").

And I don't object on religious grounds.
Only scientific and humanist grounds.

And I'm totally in favour of *brutally honest* sex education in schools.

Why do people always presume an "unwanted" child will have a worse life than anybody else?

Many people's childhoods weren't that great.
But growing up involves learning to cope with difficulties, rejection, loss, self-doubt.

Nobody escapes from the dark side of life, whatever their origins.
Those kids will learn to survive like everybody else.

Shockadelic, you have mastered to basically put in the post what I have been setting out elaborative previously.

Time and again, females having asked my views about abortions, and not having proceeded with it subsequently have expressed themselves to be glad they did not abort.

Often people are having their ups and downs and a female being pregnant can feel very disillusioned when pregnant and no partner. However, they generally find that having a child does not make them less attractive in future to get a male partner.
Picking on single parent families that somehow then the children will be worse of is sheer and utter nonsense. Frank Sinatra grew up in a single parent family and many other very successful persons did so.
Having an abortion is the killing of an unborn child (as-Shockadelic-correctly-points-out-with-its-own-DNA).
Many a parent have a still born baby placed in its own grave and mourned because to them it was after all another person. To then argue that somehow a unborn child is meaningless as the woman has the right to her own body is to ignore reality.
A woman cannot and never will fall pregnant merely because she is looking at a penis. Neither will she fall pregnant if the penis she is looking at is ejaculating. She must have the penis inside her vagina before any ability exist for her to become pregnant. Hence, it cannot be that somehow she “accidentally” fell pregnant! In simple terms she wanted the “pleasure” but hasn’t got the guts to take up the responsibilities. In simple terms, if someone drives a car by far over the speed limits because of wanting to have the pleasure to do so then the person must also accept the consequences.
I view that a woman who is so loose with the right of an unborn baby to have an abortion should be sterilised so she never ever can become pregnant again as their morality is in question! After all, if they do not desire to become pregnant they could have had a hysterectomy in the first place and still enjoy sex!

"I view that a woman who is so loose with the right of an unborn baby to have an abortion should be sterilised so she never ever can become pregnant again as their morality is in question! "

Gerritt, that sounds very Hitleresque to me, thankfully you will never
be an Australian politician.

Morals based on whose opinions? Why is your little subjective line
in the sand the correct one?

I remind you of the difference between a zygote, a foetus and a child,
but I do concede that because of lanuage, you might not understand the
difference.

An added note. A zygote contains no new dna, simply the dna of
the sperm and ova. So life continues.

Yabba, nothing to do with “Hitleresque”. Simply, if a woman does not want to risk to be pregnant but desires nevertheless to engage in sexual conduct then she can have a hysterectomy! It is therefore simple, either she has a hysterectomy or take other protection’s (which may include that she refuse to have sex with a man not castrated and/or not using protection’s to avoid pregnancy or she is bound to fulfil the obligation to avoid any harm to the unborn child. If a woman has such wide variety of options and squanders them all and pursues an abortion nevertheless then sterilisation seems to be the only option.
The moment you allow a woman to willy nilly decide the right of an unborn baby to live or not to live then you permit them the right to choose designer babies also.
We have doctors who are operating on unborn babies at times to avoid certain complications during pregnancy to the unborn baby! Now, if you are going to argue that an unborn-child has no right and is not a “unborn-child” but a mere “foetus” subject to the decision of the pregnant woman then why should society pay for the medical cost of trying to save the unborn child?
Have you ever seen how an “unborn-child” (foetus) was pulled to pieces even so it had still been alive at the time?
They happen to show this some time ago! So, is it a “child” when it is torn apart in the process of being taken out of the woman or "nothing"? Is the killing of such an “unborn-child” not murder?
There were reports that when the “unborn-child” was supposed to have been killed but after the abortion took place it was found to be still alive it then was killed anyhow because of the fact that more then likely it would die because of what was administered. To me, this is and remains plain murder!
We cannot deny an "unborn-child" the right we were given, that is an opportunity to life outside the womb.

Don Aitkin, I googled 'single mothers' and got thousands of hits and started following links. A Swedish site showed a correlation between single motherhood and poverty. Another site, American I think, a resource centre for single mothers on line help gave me the 1 in 4 will have a second fatherless child with in 24 months. Another site stated that 31% of Australia's new births are from single mothers. Another, a Canadian site showed numbers for suicide, chronic depression and child abuse. A British site took all that and included drugs and alcohol. One British site focused on the cycle of single motherhood, poverty and prostitution. It's all out there. Sites reporting from all over on single motherhood. Especially those countries with a social welfare system. You just have to look.
While some argue the pro or cons of the use of abortion. I'm rather wondering about the number of young women exploiting the laws, as well as the practices of the CSA. One third of the total new births being attributed to single mothers is no minor social condition. The laws were not drafted to encourage such behavior as a life choice but, rather to protect those who had not consciously chosen that end. Personally I think things have gotten back to front and needs proper review. Are we raising children to think in terms of exercising their 'rights', or for them to think in terms of their 'responsibilities' inherent in those rights and the obligation of every citizen to meet those responsibilities with out leaning on his or her neighbour for support. There is too much of the belief of entitlement in our perpetuation of this welfare state. It was meant to be a safety net not a choice of livelihood.

Gerritt, having sex is not exactly illegal and neither should it be!
So your comment was very much Hilteresque. A woman has roughly
400 chances to have a baby. It should be up to her, which of those
potentially cute babies she decides to progress with.

As we don't refer to you as a future corpse, the term unborn
child is really emotional rhetoric and no more. It becomes a child
at birth, not before.

Most abortions happen within the first tremester. The foetus does
not feel or think, is not yet a person, doesent yet have a human
brain.

Abortion can happen with RU 486, no "tearing apart", which you
seem so concerned about.

Murder applies to people, not organisms. Without a human brain
in place until about week 25, at week 12, the foetus is not yet
a person.

You are claiming that a fertilsed cell, ie a zygote, should have
the rights of a person. You have given no good reason for drawing
your little line in the sand at that point.