I don't live far from Clarksdale in a neighboring state and frankly that scene can be repeated all over the South where bible thumpers rule and there are few abortion clinics.

I have pretty much no patience for those dewey eyed protesters/believers who drag their children off to the clinics because they really do not give a rat's ass about the babies once they are born. The truth is the pro-life movement wants to condemn women and their children to a life of defeat and misery because somebody had sex.

I will agree to give up the right to safe and affordable abortion when we have free universal health care and education for every child born in America. I also agree that Roe vs Wade has been "technically" dead for quite some time down here. I don't even bother to defend myself in arguements when people call me " baby killer" because I support abortion rights I just say "Yeah, next..."

At the same time I feel frustruated with the mainline abortion rights advocates even though I also write my little checks because it is so obvious that Roe v Wade is over and in many way it will add to the abortion rights movement when it officially ceases. I would rather engage in the fight to start the fight over again on new grounds and terms that to keep fighting the same "ground hog day" style battles in which for some stupid reason abortion rights has been defined as a necessary "evil" even by supporters but nobody thinks it is a crime against humanity for children to grow up poor, neglected, and doomed to repeat a similar mistake once they become teenagers. Nuff said.

I can honestly say that I understand why so many individuals are opposed to abortion. What I cannot understand is why these same individuals are not working towards assisting women who cannot afford healthcare or the time off work needed to continue a healthy pregnancy, nor are they offering childcare or other services to assist these children once they are born.

I concur with the opinion that the women who will largely be affected by the increasingly-restrictive antibortion laws will indeed be those who cannot afford to take care of another child. I donate money to Planned Parenthood because I believe that all women should have access to healthcare, including services to prevent unplanned pregancy. As such, I realize that some women do have options other than becoming pregnant in the first place. However, rather than focusing solely on preventing access to abortion, why not focus on the unexpected or even unwanted children that are already here?

I believe that many people who profess to be "pro life" do have good intentions when they try to prevent women from seeking an abortion, rather than those who are simply making moral judgments. I also believe that, rather than concentrating their efforts on limiting access to abortion, those who are truly concerned about protecting life should consider spending their time and money helping the thousands of needy children currently living in this country.

Although I agree with the other letters published below, I am weary of the notion that because I am not a woman, I do not get to have an opinion on abortion, as a previous writer just suggested.

As a man, if I father a child, I am a big part of that pregnancy. I have responsibilities and therefore I have rights. In fact, it's for this reason that while I support a woman's right to choose, I am sometimes uncomfortable with it being protected under the umbrella of "privacy," since that presumably shuts me out.

More importantly, I believe that while the future of abortion is uncertain, so is how our present-day abortion rights will be viewed in the future. It's entirely possible that several generations after abortion is outlawed, moral people will be at a loss for how their moral predecessors could have supported the pro-choice movement. I don't know that this will happen, but it seems like a reasonable possibility. If so, then nothing less than how our country and our generation will be understood is at stake, and I have a stake in that-- uterus or no.

I could support a ban on abortion, but only if two conditions were met:

1. That all pregnancies begin 100% voluntarily

2. That all pregnancies are 100% safe, for both mother and child.

The fact that a safe abortion is an option at all is a technological innovation. And eventually, further tehnological innovation will make the above two conditions possible, and we can go back to abortion not being an option. But for now, our society is in an "in-between" phase, where we're beginning to take control of our destinies, yet much still remains beyond our abilities. This applies to many other issues as well -- our management of the environment, for example. We hope that we can survive to the point where we can solve these technical problems; until then, we have to make do with non-ideal solutions.

Abortion, while quite undesirable, is still a necessary tool, and must remain available.

I'd also like to focus in on the first part of #2, which I think is often neglected in these discussions: the fact that pregnancy is still a real and present threat to a woman's life.

My wife and I had our first child just over 2 years ago. While the delivery was not the worst imaginable, it was difficult enough that I was pretty scared during part of her labor. Now that we're about to have our second baby, I find myself double-checking that she's fully covered on her life insurance.

How can anyone seriously consider a law requiring that someone go through that against their will -- all the pain, the tearing, the bleeding (and/or the operation if one gets a cesarean)? Such a law would, in some ways, establish women as a slave class. Anti-abortionists need to understand that this is what they are fighting to (re-)establish.

Assuming that Roe v. Wade is NEVER restricted or overturned, the situation of the woman described in a previous letter is still unchanged. She is still poor, still from a poor family, still has bad high school grades, still cannot afford application fees to college, still cannot afford college anyway, still cannot afford birth control pills, still cannot get out of whatever Southern state she was born in for any reason, and still can't afford a deposit for rent. With Roe in place, all she can do is legally destroy her unborn child, and that means what? Won't she be likely to destroy her next one and her next one? How does killing her child/children help her?

Don't put poverty and Roe v. Wade in a package. Roe never has and never will cure poverty.

I am certainly of an age to remember pre-Roe days. What I recall are girls going off to stay with relatives or in church homes to have their babies, then putting those babies up for adoption. "Pro-choice" people seldom mention what the actual choices are: it is either guilt-free abortion or a mother sunk in depression with her clutch of unwanted children. What is avoided is the option of bearing the child, then surrendering him or her to a pair of loving, adoptive parents. Of course, that means a modicum of sacrifice. Some of us think human life is worth it.