and yes I would be prepared to adopt children in the future to help these children directly myself. Before that old card gets played.

If being 'progressive' is to buy into the morally bankrupt and selfish policy of your pleasure being given more weight than another's life, I consider being 'backwards' a badge of honour.

You have clearly not bothered to read my actual argument if that laughable strawman is how you characterise it. I am saying that every time you have sex you are consenting to the risk of creating a human life. You can clearly have sex without the express goal of conceiving, you just need to accept that it can happen and that chemically poisoning your child is not a legitimate 'solution'. I never mentioned rape so you can keep your slanderous assertions to yourself.

Where you derive the lie that I am placing all responsibility on the woman from, I don't know. It is my responsibility as a man not to have sex until I am ready to support a child. I haven't, and will remain a virgin until I am married, partly for that reason.

How you have the audacity to claim to care about children who will be abused is beyond me, when you are quite literally calling for these same children to be killed in the womb. There could be nothing more abusive than ending their lives, which you are actively supporting. You are a cheerleader to their abuse. How contorted your worldview must be! If a child is born to abusive parents, they should be taken into care and raised by loving adoptive parents, quite obviously. I don't think for a second you truly believe that death is a better outcome for these poor babies than that. Be honest, this is about your recreation being unhindered, pure and simple.

Abortion is murder and you well know it.

Quite. People literally want to right to sleep around to be more important than the right to life and we're the evil ones for opposing it.

The baby is not the woman's body and never will be, no matter how often the pro-abortion lobby lie by claiming it.

This would literally be an excuse to kill that child in the UK under current law. For shame.

Incredible cope. People know how babies are made. Women choose to risk falling pregnant when they engage in sexual reproduction. Even when contraception is used, they know there is a chance. To take that risk and then murder a human being when the risk doesn't go the way they wanted, is utterly unjustifiable. 'Forcing women to give birth' is such an ass-backwards way of putting it and you know it.

As for your last sentence, I'll take it seriously when you can look a person who suffered neglect in their childhood in the eye and tell them it would have been better for them if they'd never been born.

There should not be a 'right' to getting your leg over with no consequences when that requires snuffing out a human life. There is nothing more selfish than to prioritise your recreation over the life of another.

and I'm happy to say that I oppose abortion outright. Of course I do.

Imagine thinking that killing human beings is 'healthcare'. Deluding yourself to justify this evil practice.

So what you're saying is that the only time you had the guts to vote against the government was to take a non-conservative position?

Please go away.

For the first time I'm disappointed in one of your articles Dan. 'Private companies can do what they like' fails when there is an absolute monopoly on the market.

This sort of guff is why libertarianism is just as ideologically straightjacketed and unworkable as socialism.