I'm sort of mixed about Roe vs. Wade. I'm pro-life, yet believe there are circumstances where an abortion may be justified. Pregnancy by incest, rape, prognosis for an extreme severely defective birth, mother's life in danger. However, my dilemma about abortion goes further. Years ago, I think it was a US News & World Report article. A married couple had the husband's sperm frozen for future use. Several years later, they divorced, and she decided to use that sperm to get pregnant, thus obligating him for child support. He lost the battle to prevent her doing this. The court's view was once the sperm left his body, he had no claim to it. There was also a sort of reverse case on a TV show, The Montel Show, maybe. His artificially inseminated girlfriend or wife via his preserved sperm, planned to abort. The man really wanted a child. He lost the case in court on the basis it was her body not his, so he had no say. My memory is a bit dim now, but I recall another case where some girl claimed a boy raped her. Might have been another US News & World Report article. The DNA test, not to mention a lie detector test, showed she lied. What HIT me, was the female lawyer, upon seeing this evidence, said, "It doesn't matter whether he raped her or not. As a male, he is a potential rapist." So a big part of me thinks repeal of Roe vs. Wade might be sort of leveling the legal playing field not only for falsely accused men trapped into paying for someone else's child, but MAYBE having a say in whether or not their frozen sperm can be used without their permission. Like I said, it's a mixed bag for me because I don't think it is solely a women's issue in all cases.