I question why anyone would want to force a woman to have a child that she does not want. Why should any child have to start life with someone that resented their very existance, and endure possible neglect or worse - harm.

If we view it as "life" from the moment of conception then we also obligate the continuance of pregnancy for congenital defects, downs syndrome and the like. No disrespect to those that choose to continue such a pregnancy with love and dedication, but no one should be forced to go down that path unwillingly.

Rojo,
No one forces the mother to keep the child. There are plenty of couples (hopefully married) wanting to adopt children.

A look through another forum revels why abortion has to be heavily regulated, to stop extremists misusing abortion.

One person wanted more girls aborted then boys, because it would eventually give women more choice in who to marry.

Another person wanted to treat men as farmyard animals, where they are harvested for their sperm, and reproduction occurs only through IVF.

Another person wanted to abort baby girls if they thought society was “patriarchal”.

So how can society have stringent laws protecting children when they are born, but have no laws whatsoever to protect children from feminist extremists when they are in the womb, and yet to be born.

So HRS you are bringing up the adoption option again.

In previous decades the babies that were surplus to the adoption needs of childless couples were reared in orphanages with some very sad results, ranging from abuse that bordered on torture through to basic education until sent to work at 14 years old. It's too expensive for state governments actually to pay agencies to rear children in orphanages again, and they don't want to. What proportion of babies were surplus to the requirements of childless couples? A fairly high percentage actually.

In todays figures the number of aborted fetuses surplus to adoption requirements are 63,000 - see below.

CALCULATIONS
assume 1 in 10 couples infertile & want 1.81 children
90,000 abortions
265,900 births in 2007 with 67% of parents in a registered nuptiality see http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3301.0
26,590 babies wanted for adoption each year
63,000 surplus babies to be reared by unwilling mothers or as "wards of the state"

Billie,
You were the loving feminist that wanted children born through IVF, with men being harvested for their sperm

It could be the case where aware and loving feminists such as yourself cannot understand the complexity and sophistication of human society.

Abortion is not very complex, and definitely not very sophisticated, so aware and loving feminists such as yourself choose abortion.

If the woman doesn’t want a baby, then she has a choice of not one, but several forms of contraception.

If she doesn’t want a baby, and doesn't want to use any form of contraception, then don’t have sex (or IVF).

HRS - no form of contraception is 100% effective. There will still be many an unwanted pregnancy regardless of how careful people are with their contraceptive methods.

Which raises the question of what your stance is when a pregnancy occurs despite careful use of contraceptive.

"If she doesn’t want a baby, and doesn't want to use any form of contraception, then don’t have sex."

As has already been said, no form of contraception is 100% perfect. Accidents can and do happen. Most people see sex as an essential part of a meaningful and fulfilling life (and I wholeheartedly agree with them), and will not accept abstinence as an option.

The question of how long after conception should abortion be made illegal is really the only interesting one here, unless someone can come up with a decent argument why, for example, the termination of a four-celled embryo with no brain, nerves, feeling or emotions by morning-after pill should be illegal (without resorting to religion or other superstitions).