As of '95, Norma McCorvey is now a staunch anti-abortionist. She was used by various lawyers and shadowy feminist groups in order to challenge a law an anti-abortion law in Texas.
What does that say about killing of pre-born babies, when one of their greatest figureheads has repented and acknowledged her part (even though she was a pawn and never had an abortion)?
2007-12-28 01:13:18 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
feminists were always against abortion until the 70's when woman were getting more rights. The left-wing femi-nazi's were looking to create a new political cause out of their hatred of men and morality so they created abortion rights. Ted Kennedy says abortion is a basic fundamental right, yet he and most other Libs were completely silent on the issue back in the 60's. That's either speaks volumes about their convictions or about their views on abortion. I don't know which.
2007-12-28 01:24:32 · answer #1 · answered by wisemancumth 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋
i'm professional-existence, yet i would be sure how professional-choicers be waiting to justify abortion interior the 1st trimester and early interior the 2nd, even although I disagree with it on ethical grounds. What i'm no longer able to comprehend is: a million) How can everybody justify partial beginning abortion on an toddler that could desire to stay to tell the tale exterior the womb? there is no difference between this than outright killing a born new child. 2) Why are not there some hormonal varieties of beginning administration as quite obtainable as condoms? I truthfully have a important pork with Conservatives which could no longer get off their abstinence rant long sufficient to be sure that folk are not going alongside with that! i could decide to be attentive to the genuine 0/0 of abstinence ranters that did no longer have intercourse till now marriage? 3) there are lots of people who could provide their left arm to undertake a new child. problem is there are a number of issues of the adoption technique. (for the beginning mom and skill adoptive mum and dad) My component is, i do no longer think of abortion is going to be outlawed, yet there are steps that could desire to shrink it back if politicians and electorate could prepare some duty, and use their heads for some thing different than a hat rack. enable's make it greater undemanding to evade!
2016-10-09 07:32:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Pre-born"? Hehe! Well, if fertilized eggs are "pre-born people", then we might as well term all people "pre-dead". After all, everyone dies in the end, right? And if a fetus, being a "person" is already "pre-dead", what's wrong with speeding up the inevitable?
Moral of the story: Make your argument without inventing barbarous 50-cent words to distort the nature of the subject.
2007-12-28 01:38:30 · answer #3 · answered by Rеdisca 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As you mentioned, she was a pawn. A lot of cases that make it to the Supreme Court aren't really about the participants, but rather about the precedent that will be set. For example, in "Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka" what really matters was not Brown the person, but rather the desegregation of all American schools that resulted after the case was decided. Nobody even remembers who Brown was, but everyone remembers that court case.
2007-12-28 01:20:34 · answer #4 · answered by Somebody else 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
She had already had the baby when the case went to court.
It shows she jumped on the bandwagon when they supported her, literally supported her. It was her third pregnancy and the child was given up for adoption.
Shes made a nice living from her 'mistake'. And is now a minister.
But it would be a mistake to ever assume she was a figurehead of choice.
As to what it would say? It says that choice is still the operative word. If you don't want one, don't have one.
If you do, it should be safe and legal for the woman, the forgotten person in the debate.
2007-12-28 01:25:12 · answer #5 · answered by justa 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
She has the right to choose and she should be thankful. By the way could you name some of those "shadowy feminist groups?"
2007-12-28 01:27:18 · answer #6 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why is it that all of you fetus-huggers out there get all up in arms about the child before its born, but after it's born you could care less?...How many of you have taken in foster kids?...
2007-12-28 01:38:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's irrelevant. It's still an intensely personal decision that the woman has to make and the government has no place getting involved. That was the basis of the courts ruling and nothing has changed.
2007-12-28 01:19:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
I am just ashamed she didn't stop there since Texas as an express lane for their electric chair.
Why kill at all? Why is abortion wrong and capital punishment ok? Talk about a flip-flop!
2007-12-28 01:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by greentadpole 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I don't care how she feels about it. You can think abortion is morally wrong but still understand that the government has no Constitutional authority to get involved.
2007-12-28 01:20:03 · answer #10 · answered by Amy 3 · 10⤊ 2⤋