Yabby <"Suze, perhaps women who have a problem with abortion, should
simply keep their legs together until they are married.
Problem solved."

What 'problem' would that be then Yabby?

I imagine they wouldn't have to keep their legs together if they used contraception correctly though.

On the other hand, we could have all the unmarried men keeping it in their pants as well, with the same result as the cross-legged women!

Not so Suze. For of course having sex is normal and natural.

Its not illegal either. Just because a bloke has sex with a
woman, does not mean that he agrees to have a child.

Abortion is available, legal and a practical solution.

"What 'problem' would that be then Yabby?"

Having children that they aren't willing or able to support?

If there's no problem then we can just abolish the single mothers pension, right suzieonline?

There's no use blaming men. Rape is already illegal. The sexes are not equal, precisely because women bear offspring and men don't. If a woman can't keep her legs shut, it's her problem, not the man's. In any event, if she's unmarried, there's no saying he's going to be on the scene 9 months later, or even that she knows who it is. He may not even know a child exists. A man has no more "obligation" to support a woman to support her child unless he agrees to, than a woman has an obligation to have sex if she doesn't want to. Nature has supplied women with everything they need to get child support, and it's right between their legs. Since the woman can always provide for them if she wants to, these are not laws of child support, but of sexual morality. Their function is to subsidise other people's reproductive irresponsibility; and they propagate a belief that being a romance victim confers an entitlement to live at others expense. They implicitly regard it is a enforceable right for women to treat men as money objects, even non-consensually, at the same time as they regard it an abuse of human rights for men to treat women as sex objects, even consensually.

There is less reason a the father should be compelled to pay than that there is for you to be.

Yabby <"Just because a bloke has sex with a
woman, does not mean that he agrees to have a child."

Just because a woman has sex with a man that doesn't mean she agrees to have a child.
So yes, abortion is available to her.
However, if BOTH use contraception if neither want a child/pregnancy, then wouldn't that be even better?

Peter Hume <"Having children that they aren't willing or able to support? "
I assume you mean men as well there Peter?

Surely we wouldn't have any unmarried mothers or single mothers (with the exception of the death of the father of course), if BOTH men and women took the responsibility of contraception EVERY time they had sex unless they want children?

If men used contraception, then we wouldn't have the problem of women supposedly snaring men with their sexual magic, leading to daring to expect the father to contribute financially to the upbringing of his offspring.

Why should contraception be the domain of women only? Women can lie about their fertility of course. So I say again, if you don't want children, don't have sex. Or use contraception.

So stop whining about the poor innocent fathers.
End of story.

*However, if BOTH use contraception if neither want a child/pregnancy, then wouldn't that be even better?*

Ah but of course contraception commonly fails, so my point
is, abortion is available. Those who don't agree with it,
keep your legs together.

As to male contraception, its limited and commonly wrecks
good sex, so is often not used. Women have all the choices
there, not men.

Suze, perhaps you should head for the kitchen and do the gladwrap
test.

Run your finger over your tongue and see what you feel. Now get
a piece of gladwrap and put it over your tongue and do the same.

Tell me if you notice any difference :)