http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/17/national/main559102.shtml 'Roe' Wants Abortion Case Reversed DALLAS, June 17, 2003 Norma McCorvey, at microphone, addresses the media and a large group of anti-abortion supporters in downtown Dallas, on Tuesday June 17. (AP) "I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders." Norma McCorvey (AP) The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion. "We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion." "I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55. Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message. Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned. "I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation. McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion. McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions. McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute. The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980. © MMIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Norma McCorvey has been trying to get the decision reversed for quite a while. She's been speaking out against Roe v. Wade for years. I respect her right to change her opinion in the matter, but it seems like a good deal of it is due to her religious conversion and the resulting guilt she feels over her role in the legalization of abortions. It seems like she's trying to atone for her own perceived sins.
I am against abortion...firmly. However, I feel that post applied guilt is no more of a resonable argument against abortion than the argument for abortion which states that without it mothers will feel guilty about abandoning their babies for adoption... The reasons I am against abortions are many, but the main ones are these: ( They are inter-dependant) I feel that the right to life supercedes the right to not have to go through the discomfort/life turmoil of pregnancy and labor. I feel that the argument that a fetus is not a huma life is the ultimate in legal semantics, and subject to serious scientific debate...But, really, if it's not a baby, why are you having surgery? To remove a potential orange from developing in your womb? As such, it being a human life, I refer to my first point. I totally agree that A) I am a man...and B) It's easier for me to say this without the threat of the potentialy life altering experince of pregnancy...but I also say that I am not a parent either, and do not have to face that hardship, but am still qualified to state that parents who kill their newborns should not be allowed to do so just because they suffer from the situation in a way that I can't relate to. The fact that the vast(understatement) majority of abortions in the last 5 years have been those performed on women who have had the procedure before...not on the victim of incestual rape that we are always told to feel for refutes the 'protection' aspect to the argument.. It is, contrary to intial propoganda to the contrary, mostly being used as birth contol. Since it has been legalized in Canada, for example, there have been over 3 million abortions/year...in a country of 30 odd million. I agree that abortion can, in specific instances, make an otherwise unbearable situation ( see incestual rape victim) a little more bearable, but the law does not, and should not, be constructed to accomadate the emotions of the very extreme individual cases, especially not when doing so supercedes the right to life. It can also be argued that some parents really can see that their ( say severely developmentally handicapped child ) will never have a 'happy' life, and will be a finacnial and emotional burden on them, or society, as long as they live...but the law does not adjust itslef to account for their feelings and end their child's life.
I think that she has the right to her opinion, but does not have the right to ask or demand anything from the court. Legally, the court decided her case based on its merits at the time. I am both pro-choice and wholeheartedly spiritual. I know that God does not look at a person differently based on things that they have done. That is what we are put on this Earth for, to experience and learn what it means to be in the human condition. We all learn what we need to from the life that we live. If you believe in predestination, then how are you going to stop someone from doing something they are MEANT to do? If God means for a woman to have an abortion, she will have one as sure as if God means me to win the lotto, I will be unemployed in 2 weeks. If you are in the "free will" crowd, then the word choice should have some meaning for you. If a woman chooses to have an abortion (and you assume the fetus is a "life"), she is already going to have to pay back the karmic debt for ending a life, just as Norma McCorvey is right now. Her guilt has no legal footing when it comes to this case. I believe in reincarnation, in fact, I believe that we go through hundreds if not thousands of lives as we grow and mature as souls. Who are we to say that SIDS, abortions, and childhood diseases aren't like a dip in the shallow end of the pool for a young soul? Who are we (you know, the created, not the creator) to question the divine plan of God? He made us in His image and He knows what we are capable of. He puts one path in front of some and another path in front of others. Getting back to the actual case, I understand that Norma McCorvey is feeling guilty over what she did in her youth. There are many of us, even our President, who have had our "youthful indiscretions." None of that stuff matters because we are talking about the RIGHT that our Constitution gives us to be secure in our persons. As long as that fetus is inside another person, it should not have legal rights. That being said, I agree with banning late term abortions and some of the other regulations we have on abortion. That is one of the things the government is there to do, regulate and oversee dangerous procedures like surgery. We need to make sure that everything is done in sanitary, safe conditions just like any other medical procedure. Do we really want to create a system where poor people have to go to back alley abortionists while the middle and upper classes just leave the country? Before you people flame me as a blasphemer, ask yourself how it is that you know God any better than I do. Why are you right and I'm wrong?
I will never make any assumptions about anyone again. Great post... but I do have a pause with the argument cited above. I've never really heard that one... as a substantial argument anyway. I think her guilt is understandable when you consider how many young lives have been lost due to a court battle which carries her imprint.
The time was coming for legalized abortion. If it wasn't Norma McCorvey it would of been someone else. I am pro-choice because a "war on abortion" would freak me out more than the abortions. Good and Bad are not absolutes, it depends on one's intention. Abortions are very regrettable, but one should always examine the circumstances and allow for exceptions, and not be condemning of those who arrive at a different conclusion. (Compassion, empathy...)
if someone sleeps around and get's pregnant they shouldn't be able to have an abortion If someone is raped or if the mother's health is in danger they should.
I can not believe that woman was ever pregnant, I mean who the hell slept with that truck? Mother Trucker !!! Man, her face looks like Tutenkhamen unwrapped. Yeck !!! What were we talking about again? .... Oh, yes...Pro Choice here...and why am I not surprised to be opposite MacBeth...LOL, it is destiny Jag. DD
I agree w/ you MacBeth, though I'm probably hesitant to ever do anything about it... (ie vote for a pro-life candidate that doesn't represent the bulk of my other views). I am nervous about intervening in the affairs of women, for some reason... perhaps it has something to do w/ being raised by a plethora of women that all seemed to have their lots adversely affected by relationships w/ men.... but I did want to say that highlights my intuitions about the horrors of 'convenience'. Want to drive a car that gets 8mpg? Sure! We'll just execute the Carter Doctrine, and do everything we can to control ME oil. Hoping to have that kid in the spring? Sure!!! Just rip it out of your body, you can start over next fall. My zpg intuition also makes me wary of legislating a population increase... but all those things said, and as somebody that end of the day is "effectively" pro-choice, I have to say, the argument that a fetus is not a human life is honestly the most ridiculous thing that escapes the lips of seemingly intelligent people. Talk about a justification after the fact (everything related to abortion... everything relates to Iraq ).
Andy, it sounds like you are a follower of Depak and Neal Donald Walsch. Maybe follower isn't the word I should use but maybe subscribe to the same theories? Just curious because I see their teachings in your words. Am I off?
I'm well aware of how much most people hate my view but... ...abortion should be legitimate until the connections in the brain link to form the possibility of sentience and the fetus begins to dream. THis happens in approximately the 7th month, IIRC. Anything after that would seem to be the murder of something that is "human." Anything before is the elimination of tissue. Tissue that, of course, would eventually mature into human life, but then, one can say that we should all breed more to save as many sperm and eggs (plausible extension of same argument). I think the best argument for the pro-life crowd is that it's ultimately unknowable as to whether fetuses have souls. If it's unknowable, isn't it better to give certain women a little certain discomfort (ok, it is far more serious in some cases, but probably a minority), than possibly kill living creatures with souls? We can all agree that if we knew they had souls, its an easy choice for most of us. But I think, in reality, it depends on where you set the %. I don't buy it, because I'm hesitant to make an ethical choice for someone else based on the possibility that a particular action is inherently wrong. I personally would not want my wife to have an abortion for that reason, though.
I can't say as I have never read their writings (but thanks for the suggestions). My spiritual beliefs are a combination of Budhism, Christianity, and quantum theory. I have read many of the writings of various masters of the far east, I read the bible from cover to cover several times, and I believe the parts that have struck a chord in my heart.
A career criminal with another day in court gets the benefit of the doubt that is not extended to these unborn children. The reality is that people want "choice" because it gives them what appears to be a convenient out. Very rarely are abortions "necessary," so let's not keep them as par for the course, please!
Norma McCorvey is a liar. No one would touch that beast. I agree with points from both sides, but I think it should ultimately be a woman's choice. It's her body. Let her decide. What I don't like is the religious nuts on the pro life side. Some extreme cases of killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics in the name of God is insane. I don't even know how some of these people have the time to hang out at Planned Parenthood with their signs to harrass the sinners. The funniest is when some old maids are out there screaming or entire families show up. Give me a break. Some of these people need to look at their own lives and deal with their own skeletons before judging others.
The vast majority of these radical abortion activist/nut-jobs are single, white males--I guess the spirit of Jesus just speaks to them more frequently. BTW, there was a great HBO Doc. but I can't recall the title--And NO, it wasn't Pimps up Ho's Down or Hookers on The Point..
Do you have statistics, or are you speaking from a stereotype? Andy, don't know what to tell you about your post. You present your case but then essentially forbid anyone to argue with you because of these things you 'know.' To have a debate, some common axioms to be base the discussion on must be assumed. Your theology is so different from mine that there is probably not much use in even discussing it with you. But, there were a couple of things I had questions about. On predestination, how do you know that it isn't the case that a woman is predestined to try to have an abortion and be thwarted by the law? I don't see how predestination can be used as an argument for any action or inaction. I was also hoping you could clear up what seems to me to be a contradiction in your Constitutional argumentation. On the one hand, you say the Constitution protects our right to be secure in our person, thereby forbidding the criminalization of abortion. But then you go on to support bans on late-term abortions as a measure of public safety. Wouldn't these public safety regulations infringe on the right to privacy? If it is your Constitutional right to have an abortion at 6 months, why isn't it your right to do it at 7 months? Or, turning it around, if the State has a legitimate interest in safety at 7 months, why not also at 6 months? Why (and when) does increased danger trump the Bill of Rights?
MacBeth (not that you ever respond to my posts, but...), Could you clarrify when tissue becomes its own human life in your view. That is, can you couch your argument in light of haven's post. haven's post makes a lot of sense to me. We do have to make a reasonable line somewhere. Right now it's birth. Some would like to draw the line at conception. Aristotle wanted age 4 or so, if I recall correctly. Where's yours?
