edweaver: The right in question is the right to control one's own body. Men don't have fetuses inside their bodies. Therefore, this particular application of the right does not involve men. That is why this is often inaccurately described as a women's rights issue. It's really an individual rights issue.

Didn't he say there "has to be punishment" for the doctor if not the woman? Doesn't that mean criminalization?

Yes, this definitely not a single issue election.
Have to admit this is me dino a pro-lifer easy-peasy, since the evil hag is even for late term as hell partial birth abortions,
Even if Roe vs Wade was not even in the equation, I'm voting for The Donald over Shillary for a whole host of other issues.
One issue would be saving We The People from hopefully not too many of themselves.

Check what Hillary is offering male voters. https://blabber.buzz/politics/conservative/50005-coulter-my-final-argument-for-trump-humiliate-the-media

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal member of the SCOTUS, has said the Roe vs Wade decision was based on an unjustified expansion of constitutional rights. Trump feels the decision regarding abortion should revert to the states. He does not support making abortion a criminal offense.

Oh I agree. This is an irritating trade-off, that I think represents a change of his position.

Can you read the 9th and 10th amendment? There are rights that are enumerated in the Constitution. Of Course that does not mean you have a right to an abortion, but your line of reasoning shows you do not understand the constitution.

Ok, as an adopted child from the era where abortion was in the states purview, where do my right to live start? The law used to be only in the medical necessary need of the woman would one be provided. That was the law in Texas at the time. Why should I lose my chance at a good or bad life because my parents were reckless?

Who cares. If this is what you think is important in the US today then you priorities are out of whack.

Unless the sex was forced, the person physically affected had a choice. What about personal responsibility?

First, I keep seeing so many say "what about women's rights", well what about the baby's rights?
Second, Row vs Wade should never have happened. It is no where in the Constitution, so yes, it would revert back to the States. It would allow a State like Texas to pass and use he law they passed last year, that abortion clinics must use the same sterile procedures as a hospital or even a dentist clinic uses. Isn't that important for "women's rights?"
Other States wanted the parents of minors notified if their child was seeking g an abortion, that was struck down using RvW.
RvW is a prime example of legislating from the bench, a totally un Constitutional practice that too many support. At least when the decisions go their way.

One must always keep the big picture in focus and not get narrowed into single focus issues --- besides, the likelihood is low that this would happen. In the meantime, we need to drain the swamp.

The one that is not physically affected. Otherwise the mother is a slave.

Father can go make another with a willing partner.

Good question. What about when it's the other way around?

Who wins the legal argument when a father-to-be wants to keep the fetus and the mother-to-be doesn't?

Ahh. Agreed.

Individual freedom I could go along with but not women's rights. Women's right's implies that women have a different right than men which is the opposite of a freedom in my book.

I have a small pile of cells inside me and I want them out. If it was a cancer, there would be no argument. However, Trump is playing to the crowd to set SCOTUS justices that may overturn this precedent.

In my mind this is similar to the second amendment. Both are individual freedoms. Trump is a fool to let this slide in between.

I don't know what you mean.

Coy is cute, but annoying.

I don't see it either.

So, I want this thing out...

Don't see it?

I don't understand how this has anything to do with women's rights?