Abortion is morally wrong

[Bibliofagus]

If I buy and use anti-conception, am I then 'accepting' pregnancy as a consequence of having sex?

I don't think Arthur Dent meant that you accept the consequences. I think he meant that it is accepted that sex leads to pregnancy.

I should have elaborated more I guess. I was on my phone however and I'm still struggling with typing anything on that thing

The original (and full) statement was:

Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence of sex, meteor strikes are NOT a accepted consequence of anything.

Which is heavily loaded towards his moral argument - if - he's tying to make a scientifically accurate statement - which is what I assume you are getting at. And it's a false analogy to boot - if - he's just talking 'facts'.
Let's look at the first half of it: Since non-pregnant women do not get pregnant every time they have even unprotected sex, he should have said something like "Actually pregnancy is a known and accepted consequence that sometimes occurs because of sex" or something. 'Sometimes' being the most important word here. Edit: (The rest could probably be phrased better.)
What he's doing is not unlike saying: "Actually being killed in a horrific car crash is a consequence of driving a car."

And that's not nitpicking - given the second half of the statement.
Like it is possible to never get pregnant by never ever having sex, it is possible to never die of meteor strikes if you never leave your bunker.

The first move (not having sex to prevent pregnancy) is widely propagated and thus I assumed 'accepted'. The second... less so.

Also there is the rest of the post:

For example, you drive your car everyday, if one day you get into an accident and damage someone else's car can you argue I only wanted to get around, I didn't agree to hit your car so I'm not going to pay the bill.

This is about social acceptance and legalities.

Or if you play ball in your backyard, use reasonable precautions (a fence or whatever) and you still accidently hit the ball into your neighbor's window can you aruge you are not responsible becuase you only want to play ball not break a window?

This is about social acceptance and legalities.

The last part:

Regarding automony, I specifically state willingly and I argue by enganging in behavior that has a potential consequence you implicitly agree to those consquence assuming you knew of them and it was voluntary. Not sure where I forced anyone to do anything. thanks

This is a point I wanted to address later on, but I wanted to argue that there are good reasons for the term Proportionality in law.

Again my point here is to look at the moral question being asked not a legal question.

Heh.