Graham, I agree with some of what you wrote, but this:

What she sees is no alternative THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO HER. She has the choice to leave her partner if he insists on her carrying to term and she doesn't want to. She has the choice to break contacts with her family, friends or church if they insist on her carrying to term and she doesn't want to. If she wants a baby, she (and her partner, if relevant) has the choice to live on relatively little money.

is very unrealistic. Not all of those are generally AVAILABLE, let alone acceptable to some women. Economics alone can keep a woman in a bad situation. I have married friends who were forced to have either a baby or an abortion because that is what their husbands demanded. They've both since divorced, but at the time, the college-educated women, were penniless, without cars, without friends and family, one also had two little children already.

I was in a similar situation as LtS, pregnant at 17 and loath for anyone to find out. Abortion was not available then, I didn't even know it existed as an option. Birth control, other than a condom which my boyfriend didn't like and he loved me, don't worry, etc. all the lies a 16 year old would believe then...there was nowhere to turn. I do not regret having my son, but I probably would have had an abortion then if it'd been an option.

As I said before:

IF right-to-lifers would stop their opposition, to such things as the Morning After Pill, family planning funding, and sex education, they might actually contribute to less of a need for abortions to be legally available. Until then, women will have to continue to work for the right to decide what is done with and to their own bodies.