The top commenter here, Arlene, can't even spell "Roe" right with regards to the 1973 case that legalized abortion. To her it's "Row v Wade" so I hardly think that anything Arlene has to say can be considered credible. She also makes contradictory points. She claims that with abortion not even illegal, just not provided by taxpayers, the death toll from botched, presumably black-market abortions would rise. Yet when regarding the 2nd amendment, she doesn't think that limiting/taking away the right to bear arms, and the right to ably defend oneself, will lead to more deaths by those who purchase guns illegally??? It's the same thing. Yet her stance conveniently shifts to align with certain staples of Liberalism. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand legislation protecting/providing for something (Product A) because the black market alternative is worse, but then demand legislation banning something (Product B) when its black market alternative is also worse. Pick a road, you can't drive on both! Also the original woman in the ROE v Wade case has since admitted that she lied and even regrets her decision to abort, and yet that case is the chief reason abortion is even legal in the first place and of its current standing. Sure, there's gray area, but something to think about. Also if one can't be bothered to spell correctly or not be contradictory then perhaps they shouldn't bother sharing their opinion at all.