"Jane Roe" of the landmark Roe v. Wade lawsuit, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, is now a strong Pro-life advocate. McCorvey writes that she never had the abortion and became the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff who they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.
Here are some sources:
http://www.operationoutcry.org/pages.asp?pageid=32632
http://www.leaderu.com/common/roev.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
How can we continue to accept a legalization that never should have occurred in the first place? How can we
2007-07-30 00:58:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You are so right and I believe what McCorvey says..the lawyers of course used her..it is a common practise today...example, if a man gets stopped for an alleged crime and search and he is not of a special race or something and the case will not be sensational, try and find one of these "rights" lawyers to take the case...But, if say he is a minority driving a huge SUV and is stopped and searched for no reason and the police find something, the rights lawyers will be lining up to make a name for themselves...that said, I am so against abortion and have a serious problem that our system in Ontario pays for abortion but not for a vasectomy...what is wrong with this picture?...in this day why do we need abortion at all, accept in major extenuating circumstances...and even in many of the cases now where the life of the mother is threatened the fetus can be removed and can survive at some unbelievable levels of maturity....Rape?...there is no reason anymore because the morning after pill exists...Mistake?...if a boy and girl are educated properly, there are no mistakes and if the morning after pill is available freely to all who want it, then a child's fear of the parent is eliminated and properly educated, by the parent or schools, the boy and girl will know exactly what to do and "properly educated',they will know what protection is and will also be protecting themselves from disease...that all said I will end with a real antiabortion story...my ex wife decided she only wanted one child and despite protection she got pregnant...we were very well off financially so it was not going to be a hardship...she went off to a doctor who was going to perform an abortion and I was called in and told...I said no way and after being told it was none of my business, I walked out...no support from her parents, I pleaded with her to visit the doctor who had delivered our first boy and he convinced her not to have the abortion...the moral of this story is I have a gorgeous 24 year old girl who just recently graduated in education from one of the world's best universities and is a daughter to be proud of and the best friend my son ever had...me and my wife?...well we ideologically lost touch after that, every time I saw my gorgeous daughter, I could not forgive her for her callous belief in life...I am a staunch anti abortion person and, funny, my daughter without being taught by myself is vehemently anti abortion...tell me the fetus is not conscious of life if she was born with such a belief?...oh, I ended up raising both children myself and am so very proud of both of them....and when they were old enough, I always told them that if the worst possible sexual scenario happened, I would not allow abortion but would raise any child myself until the parent child was finished school...that support should be there for any girl who does end up pregnant...sorry I got off the question, but it is time the politicians got out of the debate and the courts could have another go without lawyers or any cases, just pure representation from the public, then a decision...and you know what?...it would be found out that although most of us are not religious "nutbars" we are anti abortion but pro choice to a point and that is only in extreme extenuating circumstances...just give the real people a chance to talk...this one I am with Bush...
2007-07-30 01:33:34 · answer #1 · answered by bruce b 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The personal beliefs of Norma McCorvey are secondary to the legislation.
She was used as an example by the pro-choice movement. Normal herself has never had an abortion however worked in a clinic for a number of years.
There was a large movement to make abortions safe. It was put forth my a woman's movement, and Norma McCorvey was just used as a patsy, she was a young and sympathetic woman.
Whether abortion is legal or not, it is going to happen. That was a large point in the case. The issue was making abortion safe.
2007-07-30 01:42:44 · answer #2 · answered by smedrik 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
She never had the abortion because, for one thing, it was illegal at the time. An often overlooked portion of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade is that the Court deferred to science on the question of fetal viability, potentially leaving the door open for future re-evaluation should the medical/scientific community acquire new information on that issue.
2007-07-30 01:31:36 · answer #3 · answered by MALIBU CANYON 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not saying abortion is right or wrong. Personally, I could care less either way. In answer to your question, though, it really doesn't matter what Jane Roe thinks now. The law was passed based on the circumstances of the time. It is equivalent to a domestic violence case. If a woman is beat to a pulp by her husband, but later recants and tries to say he didn't do it, the state still has a right to proceed with the case if the evidence supports it, because the husband still broke the law. It has nothing to do with what the woman wants, it has to do with enforcing the law and protecting other people like her who actually might want to be protected.
Whether or not Jane Roe was a pawn or not is irrelevant, because she still agreed to do it, and still had the circumstances that lead to the decision that was made. If it wasn't Jane Roe, it would have simply have been someone else. So this line of reasoning does not prove you right. Best stick to the "life begins at conception" argument, which is at least based somewhat on science.
2007-07-30 01:10:55 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Abortion is a hot topic and hopefully you will get many thoughtful opinions not just blind obedience to the NOW line of thought. Abortion should never have gone to the Supreme Court. It should have been debated and decided upon by the individual states.
In my opinion abortion is murder but yet I can understand why some women feel they cannot carry the baby to term. If I was pregnant by a rapist I don't think I could carry that baby to term. If I was pregnant by my father or brother I could not carry that baby to term. If carrying the baby to term would kill me and I was told that this was a 100% fact I would submit to an abortion.
Those few things are the only times I feel an abortion should be allowed.
But, I am old and have seen many things so perhaps I do not see abortion as just black and white. I see the shadings of gray and have more compassion for those who must make those choices.
2007-07-30 01:18:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The supreme court decided the law based on thier interpretation of the US Constitution. Whether or not that particular individual actually believes in abortion is really immaterial. It matters no more than wether or not you or I support or oppose abortion. The Constituition is not going to change based on my opinions or yours.
2007-07-30 01:33:03 · answer #6 · answered by Louis G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The other part of Roe that isn't mention much is the viability of the fetus is to be considered.
Not according to the die hard Pro-choice.
There needs to be a reasonable debate but that is not going to happen when both sides are so dug in their trenches.
The majority of Americans don't want abortion illegal nor do they want no restrictions.
Yet when you hear the Pro-choice vs Pro-life you have to be all of one or other the other.
I happen to think you should get one abortion no question next time you want one you get sterilized with your abortion.
If it is from rape rape charges should be filed in case of minor protective services should be notified.
Abortion shouldn't be used for birth control.
It was good to see the partial birth abortion ban stand.
How Pro-choice fought it tooth and nail yet they tell us we should go with the will of the people and the will of the people was for it to pass.
There is no easy solutions for abortion not until BOTH sides are willing to comprise and willing to work for a solution.
BTW: I can't help myself to the person who said Pro-Choice is the middle ground. How come they oppose any type of regulations from informing the mother of fetal devolpment, offering her alternatives to abortion, getting parental concent or judge for a minor, etc etc.
Pro-Choice keeps opposing any suggestion of ANY kind of regulation. So don't tell me it is middle ground.
2007-07-30 01:20:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Many legal precedents are established this way. And many of those are precedents that have a positive and/or protective effect on YOUR life, the lives of your family and the lives of your children. The problem with extremeists like you is that you simply do not understand the legal process, or you will not accept the way it works if it violates one of your self righteous principals.
2007-07-30 01:15:18 · answer #8 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
the united states has tooken freedom of adults a little too far.
2007-07-30 01:35:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It sounds to me like she's lived her whole life as a tool - if what she says is true, then she was used by pro-choice lawyers to get legislation passed to legalize abortion.
Now she's being used by pro-lifers to attempt to illegalize abortion.
Her opinion means jack.
2007-07-30 01:11:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋