Does it matter that Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe VS Wade) is now Pro-Lif
In the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws legislating against abortion are unconstitutional, overturning individual states' laws against abortion.
The Roe v. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the baby in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue. she recanted her support of abortion rights, thus becoming pro-life.
She may know something I don't
Side Score: 12
|
 |
Who cares? I'm for aborting!
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Ironic that the person that started the abortion maelstrom switched sides. I noticed that Wade is still Pro-Life... an unmovable pillar in that camp. I guess when you're right, you're right and there's no need to change sides. All you have to do is wait until the others come to their senses. I'm gonna catch hell for this, ain't I ;) Side: She may know something I don't
3
points
It's relivent for her, and it's something to think about if you're in that situation, but I don't think it's a case to take away the choice. She made her own choice, nobody forced her to do anything. And while I believe that women should do their best to avoid abortion, everyone should have the opportunity to make the choice for themselves. Side: She may know something I don't
|
2
points
It has nothing to do with the actual argument. The lawyers were looking for a test case and she just happened to be the one they found. Her situation probably changed, and she changed her mind later. That's her prerogative, but now all women have this choice too thanks to what she was apart of. Side: Who cares? I'm for aborting!
First, no, I'm not "for aborting" in a blanket sense. However, ultimately Roe v. Wade is not about the beliefs of the individual plaintiff – or, ideally, the personal beliefs of the justices – but about balancing the individual’s rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy with the state’s interests in (as the Court puts it) “maternal health” and “potential life.” Those principles and arguments had nothing to do with the attitudes of McCorvey (“Roe”), whose personal feelings on abortion are not even referenced in the Roe decision. The fact that “Roe” has undergone a change of opinion – dare I say “brainwashing”? – at the hands of Operation Rescue, who have likewise persuaded her to recant her lesbian identity, speaks only to the fact that the particular plaintiff in “Roe” suffers from deep identity confusion. It does not speak to the analysis of the Court, nor does it speak for the millions of American women and families who have ordered their lives around the knowledge that their legal rights include some level of reproductive choice. Side: Who cares? I'm for aborting!
2
points
Sorry Banshee, but your argument (and the actual case) fails. As you stated, "...about balancing the individual’s rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy with the state’s interests in (as the Court puts it) 'maternal health' and 'potential life.'" As we know the "individual’s rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy" is hogwash, since smoking marijuana is illegal, that suicide is illegal, that prostitution is illegal. Roe vs Wade should have made all of these legal under the argument that was given. Also, if she was "brainwashed", as you put, why did she leave the Evangelical movement and become a Roman Catholic? (If you are irreligious or an Atheist, let me explain that outside of a belief in Jesus as God, these two belief systems are very much at odds with each other). So her being brainwashed doesn't hold water in the light of this fact. Side: She may know something I don't
1
point
OK, so are you saying... 1. It's a good thing that "Roe" did not reproduce because she's a bit of a nut. ;) 2. To have, or not to have, unprotected sex is not enough of a reproductive choice. We need to add more reproductive choices like abortion. Side: She may know something I don't
To your first point - "Roe" had the baby. In fact, she had several. The pregnancy at issue in the suit was a two-year-old girl by the time Roe was decided. To your second point - I am not saying anything about my personal feelings on abortion; although if you are interested in my personal feelings, I feel that abortion is a deeply flawed and imperfect solution to a very real social problem. Until we have a BETTER solution to that problem (or problems), however, we as a society and as individuals cannot afford the degree of devastation that would be wrought on our nation, and on individual women and families, by exterminating the current, limited legal rights to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. "To have or not to have unprotected sex" is not the free choice you glibly paint it as. Rape and sexual assault remain very serious and frighteningly common problems in our society. Women in poverty may turn or be forced into the sex industry to keep themselves from starving. Birth control fails. It is also very relevant that it is women, and women alone, who by necessity HAVE to bear the consequences. Men do not get pregnant. Sure, you can try to slap the father with a paternity suit and collect child support (if he has any money, and if you can find him, and if he won't assault you for trying it) - but you cannot force him to carry, bear, or parent a child. The bottom line is still that we are dealing with the question of whether the state can comandeer women's bodies for nine months, perhaps then resulting in the commandeering of their lives thereafter. The question of abortion restrictions therefore threatens to impose limitations on the bodily integrity and automony of women that simply do not exist for men. Moreover, the question of how and when to order one's family decisions is an intensely personal choice that is, truly, fundamental to our sense of liberty. Thus, I agree with the Court in Roe that this is not a decision from which the woman can be entirely excluded as a matter of law. Side: Who cares? I'm for aborting!
To have, or not to have, unprotected sex is not enough of a reproductive choice. We need to add more reproductive choices like abortion. I've seen you make similar comments before; you don't seem to realize that 1) protection isn't always effective and 2) rape happens. Side: Irrelevant
|
