I can't understand why women dont want the govenment handling heathcare but will except the over turning?

Those 3 reasons you list for "having a choice" are all good points. But are also the small minority of reasons that women have abortions.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of abortions are for matters of "convenience"; as in the mother just didn't want the baby, having a baby would conflict with a mothers lifestyle; even getting an abortion to "get back" at a husband or lover for whatever reason.

If a woman were raped, she should have the choice. If her health were at risk, she should have the choice.

Other than that, she already has the choice...to keep her legs closed or use contraceptives.

And the keep-legs-closed argument is way off the mark.

There are many girls and women who lack the education, access or money or mental health for any reliable contraception...and the education and money to bring up a child. But they may also have men who don't take no for an answer...and 4 or 5 other children already. Then there are girls and women who are under the influence of substances and cannot make the legs-closed judgement...good mother material?

And even the best of contraceptives is only 97% reliable. NOT every pregnant woman was just careless.

Anywhere - everywhere - abortion is illegal, or so complicated to get legally that it is almost impossible - dangerous illegal backyard criminal operators fill the gap. And many of their patients die or end up crippled or infertile for life. Nowhere in the world at any time in history has banning abortions put a stop to them.....and even every tribal society has its methods of procuring abortion, even if their contraception methods are not too good.

Here in Australia, every clinic gives a counselling session before the procedure, and afterwards supplies contraception that suits the person's circumstances. They try hard to put themselves out of business. The fees are covered by the national universal health care system.

The USA problem is, the rich can always get an abortion if they want one...the very rich can even go to another country. The poor, who are in a worse position to keep a pregnancy, are the ones who suffer if clinic funding is cut, or some States ban it, on moralistic grounds.

Legal abortion is a CHOICE.. people who believe abortion is wrong are in NO WAY forced to have one, but they should not try to force other people to live by THEIR beliefs.

>>>>>>>

Considering a lot of the debate centres on at what age does a conception become a human person, the easier abortions are to get, the earlier they will get done.

And please don't tell me "at conception" ----an apple seed is not an apple tree, merely the potential to become one.

Until the government can bear the responsibility and consequences of the choice, it should stay out of the making of that choice. All the options in an unwanted pregnancy are bad.

If the mother choses to have the child and raise it, she may grow to love the child, and provide it a good stable home. But at the time of the pregnancy, something is wrong, and she may well go on a very different path. As an educator, I saw the children who were tolerated rather than loved, housed rather than provided a home, and who just grew, rather than being raised. She knows best what she is capable of doing or how far short she may fall. Let her make the choice.

If the mother choses adoption, she will live her life wondering if she gave the child to a couple who raised it lovingly or who wanted it for some reason not loving. She might have a chance to learn about the adoptive couple, but then again, they may not want her involved. She'll have the doubt, the remorse, and the guilt if she discovers all did not go well. Let her make the choice.

If she has an abortion, she'll face the guilt, the "what might have been" issues, and the chances of an physical complications ranging from discomfort to death. Let her make the choice.

If she has the baby, she has the risk of complications from the pregnancy, not the government. The government simply can not take on the risks other than a small part of the financial burden. What, then, gives it the right to make the choice?

Keep government out of my bedroom, out of my pocket, and out of my womb.

The next president will most likely appoint two supreme court justices. Some of the abortion decisions have been close and it might be enough to swing those decisions. Now even if it went back to the states - why should a woman who has made the already difficult decision to have an abortion , if she lived in a state that had outlawed or restricted abortion, be forced to go to another state. there are enough conservative states already trying to pass anti-abortion laws that would bery well be the case. When I voted the other day there was a petition for a state amendment to declare a person as starting from conception and also extending to where it would make and of life decisions where someone would be taken off life support illegal as well. There are such movements in quite a few states and the possibility of them passing. So Roe vs. Wade is an important statute to remain.

I do not know of one person who is pro-choice who thinks abortionis good. They just see it as something that has to remain legal and safe for those who have to make that difficult decision.

in countries that don't have a Roe v. Wade type court case dictating law at the federal level, such as in my country Australia, abortion laws are decided at the state level, and no it is not black and white, it isn't the situation in the U.S. that either you allow abortion at any time up to the day before birth, or you ban it at any point the day after conception, it is a natural grey area, and each state decides when a pregnancy become a human being, and after that point there are heavy restrictions, in the case where a pregnancy has a 90% chance to kill the mother, only a retarded infantile psychopath would suggest that she be sacraficed for the sake of the baby...

I'm Pro-Life, but I firmly believe that abortion MUST be legal, or women will go back to having back-alley abortions that often end in their own death.

I also feel that a woman's health is the first priority, and henceforth if pregnancy will pose a threat to her health, she has ever right to get rid of it.

When it comes to rape, I would personally suggest adoption, but if she can't go through with the pregnancy then she can't go through with the pregnancy.

The problem that I have is when it is used as a means of contraception. But even then, it is better to give them financial support and let them know that money is NOT an issue, than to take the choice away and leave them to the horrors of back-alley abortions.

I do believe that it is murder, because I consider the beginning of life to be the unification of genetic material, but if it's the life of the unborn or the already born, I will choose the already born every time. With a heavy heart.

Nothing broken.

Roe v Wade is irrelevant. The only reason for abortion today is due to rape or incest. And of course in a life-threatening situation.

It is inexcusable for a woman today (with all of the readily available birth control) to end up in a unwanted pregnancy situation.

Non-issue unless you intend to use abortion as birth control, and that makes you far less than a woman.

Many women regretted after getting an abortion for whatever reasons. Yes, they have the right to choose. But hopefully they don't choose regret, sadness and depression. In the case of rape, will the baby knows that it is conceived without love ?

I feel the abortion issue should be decided as a state issue...I am not too worried about it...abortions have always been performed for women who have pregnancies that are killing them...even in the early 20th century...

at the very worst...if roe v wade is eventually overturned...a womans right to choose will become a state to state issue...and maybe, if the former antichoice women wake up....red states will have a much higher ratio of men to women..because the women want to go where they are respected