Is Norma McCorvey proof that cons are hypocrites?

Question

I hear cons say all the time, "Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it," with disdain, as though changing your mind about something is the weakest thing that you can possibly do.

Is Norma McCorvey proof that they are hypocrites?

For those who don't know, McCorvey is "Jane Roe," the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade. She, apparently, was all for abortion... until she was against it. (Pretty convenient that she was in favor of abortion long enough to have one, and then she changed her mind when it comes to the rights of OTHER women.)

Is it okay to change your mind only if you are changing your mind to agree with the conservatives?

What are the rules?

grips: Ah, I see. Presidents aren't allowed to change their minds. Tell that to Bush and his "benchmarks."

To those who think I'm criticizing Norma's right to change her mind... I'm not. I'm pointing out that, by supporting her NOW that she has changed her mind, and by holding her up as proof that abortion should be made illegal because "the mother will regret it," while simultaneously insisting Kerry is a weak-willed weenie because he changed his mind about the war, cons are hypocrites.

No one ever said abortion comes without regret. I mean, yeah, it probably does for some women. But it's a very heavy issue and should never be taken lightly - but it is still the WOMAN'S CHOICE.

fnac: What law are you referring to? Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, not a law.

Answer 1

Changing your mind is a personal choice. There's nothing wrong in that. These accusations in any direction are mudslinging. We all should change our minds from time to time as it shows openess and the will to learn. If we hadn't changed our minds the earth would be flat. Fault no one for progressing. You must vote your choice on the issues now represented by an individual or party. The cage of fundamentalism is cold and intolerant.

Answer 2

Actually, she is proof of the hypocrisy of the left abortion worshipers. Norma Jean McCorvey was a dupe of the left's abortion lawyers. She was not even aware that her case went before the Supreme Court until after the ruling

Norma Jean McCorvey did not have an abortion. She was not " in favor of abortion long enough to have one," she never had one. You ought to correct your question, unless you feel you can ask questions without facts.

When Norma Jean McCorvey, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, approached lawyers in order to get an abortion, she lied about how her child had been conceived, asserting she had been gang-raped. Stoned or drunk during most of the proceedings, she never actually got the abortion. She gave her child up for adoption instead. But, when she discovered that her case had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and had resulted in legal abortion in all fifty states, she twice attempted suicide. She was disgusted by how far her lie had been taken. She did not want her name, even in a pseudonym, to be associated with that kind of mass slaughter.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050314

"Norma Jean McCorvey, submitted a 5200-page brief asking a Texas court to vacate its pro-abortion ruling."

And, for a person who on occasion likes to talk about "scientists" and global warming, you ought to know: It is ok to change your mind, when evidence indicates that your original hypothesis needs to be changed. That's the essence of science, you ought to know that.

Answer 3

Norma McCorvey was a very troubled woman who gave birth to three children but raised none of them. In 1995 she was energetically evangelized by the president of Operation Rescue, Rev. Phillip Bentham, who just happened to locate the national headquarters for his organization next door to the abortion clinic where McCorvey worked.(coincidence?? God's hand??) A few months later, McCorvey was converted and her baptism was broadcast on national TV. She was given a good office job at Operation Rescue and co wrote a book. Whether her change of heart about abortion was engineered by those who proselytized her is perhaps irrelevant, but she certainly reaped some rewards following her conversion. In her book, she complained about how the plaintiff's attorneys in Roe v. Wade treated her. This was in marked contrast to how the anti-abortion movement courted her many years later.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/01/mississippi/print.html

To answer your question directly, I don't think she's a hypocrite, I think she's someone who's been used.

Answer 4

I have not said that once. As for hypocrites in the liberal field, look no further then many on here. Off of here? O'Donnel would probably be the biggest one of all, claiming she is oh so compassionate and open minded yet assumes that if someone does not have the same view points as her, they MUST be racist (her little ching-ching-chong comes to mind), homophobic (the whole Clay Aiken thing, even though he had NEVER said he was gay), Christians are evil (basing this off the incredibly few abortion clinic bombings that have not happened in who knows how long), and way to many more examples.

Answer 5

Let me ask you a question.

How would you feel that at a weak point in your life, and for McCorvey, if you know ANYTHING about her case, you know that she was at a weak point in her life, a decision was made that led to the death of millions? I mean millions. Yes, MILLIONS. Do you think that it is even possible once you got out of that bad situation and had time to really sit down and think things through that maybe, just maybe, your bad situation had turned into something that it wasn't really ever meant to be, and now you are responsible for it all? Maybe, just maybe, do you think that you might feel any guilt whatsoever? Maybe even just a little?


You know, come to think of it, I think the whole thing makes the pro-choice side look worse. I mean, they hail the Roe V. Wade decision as a landmark case, yet just seem to have dumped the woman who was the center OF that landmark decision because her views now were in direct opposition to their own goals.

Answer 6

No. Norma McCorvey is proof that Norma McCorvey is a hypocrite. Just as I wouldn't say that (for example) liberals are hypocrites because Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite, your statement is unfair.

Oh, and I'm an Independent, so don't go lumping me in with the cons.

Answer 7

"If you're not a liberal by the time you're 21, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain." -- Winston Churchill

"The most devoted revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." -- Hannah Arendt

"Norma McCorvey is a not-very-bright Texan who, when young, didn't want the rules to apply to her; but, when older, wants them to apply to everyone else. Sound familiar? But you should have had plenty of proof that right-wingers -- I won't dignify them by calling them conservatives -- are hypocrites, long before she became the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader of the reproductive freedom movement." -- Me

Answer 8

Kerry is a hideous creep forever stuck in his misspent youth.

Just the same way Power Rangers are no longer the most important part of your day, one does tend to change ones out look after life experience.

Answer 9

No. Norma McCorvey is proof that there is hope that people can outgrow the lies they've been fed by Liberalism.

She was never a politician, never ran, was never elected. The war in Iraq, which was voted FOR by the likes of Kerry and Clinton, who are now saying they want it defunded, is an entirely different matter.

But it all ends up being about personal responsibility.

Answer 10

You can't judge an entire group of people based on one single person and their actions.

Is Bill Clinton proof that all liberals are adulterers? Of course not.

Generalizations are sloppy thinking.

And this is AMERICA - people have the right to their own opinions, and that means that they have the right to change their minds on any issue at any time.