Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"Roe" wants Roe v. Wade reversed

Roe Vs. Wade Abortion

  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:10 AM

Offered without comment:

'Roe' Wants Abortion Case Reversed

Excerpt:

Quote

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fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.

. . .

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.

. . .

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.

Edited by Cait, 21 September 2012 - 04:12 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#2 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:14 AM

Er, mods, could you delete the subtitle, which I don't even recall putting in there. Perhaps replace it with "Potential Hot Topic". T'anks!
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:16 AM

This is old news.

And it's easy for her to moralize now that she's not in the difficult position that lead to the decision in the first place.

Lil (whew.  I just realized that there is ZERO chance of me discussing this issue in a rational manner so I'm not going to.)
Posted Image

#4 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:17 AM

Everything in this world has negative effects.That said I do not feel it right to force someone else to live with a circumstance that they do not want to have to deal with.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#5 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:25 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2003, 04:17 PM, said:

This is old news.
It's old news that she's become a pro-life advocate. What's new news is her filing the petition to have the case reviewed.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#6 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:26 AM

I think abortion should be kept legal.

Yes, there are women out there who wish they hadn't had an abortion, but I think that if you're going to have one, you should think long and hard on it.  It shouldn't be something where you say 'oh dang, I'm pregnant, time to get an abortion...'.  I think of it as a last option form of birth control, since condoms and pills are much better, healthier, cheaper choices.

Now here's another reason I believe abortion should be legal: even if there are laws against it, it's going to happen.  At least if it's legal there wont be women getting abortions in dirty places like allyways or women taking drugs to get rid of the baby even though they don't know what to take that will get rid of the baby without hurting themselves, or trying to inflict trauma on themselves in order to induce a miscarriage.  I have a cousin who is severly mentally retarded because her mother wanted an abortion and couldn't get one so she took any drug that she could get her hands on in oder to terminate the pregnacy.  I know this may sound very cold, but in many ways my cousin would be better off if her mother had been allowed to abort.

All that said, I don't believe in 3rd trimester abortions because by that point A) the mother has had enough time to decide to keep the baby or not and B) by that point the baby is a living, feeling thing.  First trimester it is not much more then a cluster of growing cells, second trimester it begins to have some shape and it's somewhere in this point where the question starts getting more then a little gray for me.


edited to add:  I'm not really sure this is on topic, but there's my basic view on the whole issue.  I can think of a few reasons why 'Roe' might want to reverse her court case, some having to do with probably feeling rather guilty that, because of her, so many women have now had legal abortions, which is something I'm sure has been pointed out to her numerous times.  Its probably also pretty easy for her to try to imagine life without the child she tried to get aborted (I imagine that she has been supported monetarily or otherwise to help her deal with her kids by the people who are now using her as a spokesperson, so the orginal pressures of not being able to take care of the child have been relieved)

Edited by Nikcara, 18 June 2003 - 08:36 AM.

We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#7 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:28 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2003, 09:17 PM, said:

(whew.  I just realized that there is ZERO chance of me discussing this issue in a rational manner so I'm not going to.)
Heh. I agree.

In fact, I'm making a new resolution :) to cease responding to topics that don't seem designed to start a conversation but are, instead, just someone "proving a point" about something.

I mean, Drew, what conversation did you want to have here? There's no way of knowing since you chose not to comment yourself.

Did you want to discuss how people can change their minds about decisions they've made in the past and about how that could affect the social or political climate?

Was this a social commentary on how people involved in significant legislation can find that the world moves past them?

Are you against Roe vs. Wade and did you think posting the article was, without comment, sufficient support for that position?

Are you for Roe vs. Wade and were you appalled by this, as Lil pointed out, 'old news' revelation that one of those involved has changed their position?

I don't get it.

#8 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:34 AM

I am going to have to agree with Lil, I don't know if I can discuss this topic with any rationality.

Shal takes a deep breath...and begins typing.

For every decission one makes in life, they is always a chance of regret later,  especially with as sensitive a subject as this is. I do not think that affadavits from a 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 women regretting their decissions should have any bearing on the law. Nor should the case be overturned.

Women have the right to reproductive freedom, the right to choose wether or not to bear children.

I feel that overturning this decission, and starting the basis for changing the law will hurt more women than it saves from regret later in their lives.

If women are denied the right to an abortion it will just send them to doctors willing to perform illegal acts, and all the possible concequences of going to doctors like that...

#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:36 AM

Here's a similarity that struck me immediately upon reading this story.

The lawsuits against big tobacco included lots of testimonies from smokers who claimed they didn't know smoking was addictive when they started.

This petition to review Roe v. Wade includes hundreds of testimonies from women who claimed that they didn't know the negative effects an abortion would have on their lives.

I certainly don't want to compare smoking to having an abortion, but I do wonder how effective are testimonies that claim "I didn't know what effect this would have when I did it." In the anti-tobacco lawsuits, we know that there were huge settlements, and a lot of state coffers got a nice big boost.

In this case . . . heck, this seems like a situation where NOW should be on the side of these women.

We shall see what comes of it. The courts have a limited amount of time to reply.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:39 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 17 2003, 04:29 PM, said:

Are you for Roe vs. Wade and were you appalled by this, as Lil pointed out, 'old news' revelation that one of those involved has changed their position?
As I pointed out to Lil, the "news" isn't her change in position. She made that clear long ago. It's that she filed this petition, and the court must respond.

Why did I post this topic? I dunno . . . why did you post in this thread?  :p
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#11 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:40 AM

But the women who claim they didnt know the negative aspects of abortion can't really say 'they lied to me!'.  Doctors tell their patients medically what will happen, and what happens socially isn't really anything the government can/should deal with.
Tobacco, on the other hand, told smokers that nicotine wasn't addictive and that there were no real medical effects of smoking.

It's the difference of being lied to vs not researching what you're planning on doing

One can be helped
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#12 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:43 AM

Drew, on Jun 17 2003, 09:40 PM, said:

Why did I post this topic? I dunno . . . why did you post in this thread?  :p
Because I thought the title was intriguing and yet when I opened the thread, you'd just quoted an article, but you hadn't said anything about it. :)  

I always figure the person opening a topic should get the first shot at defining the discussion but if you don't define it, I'm at a loss to know what about it interested you.

#13 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:52 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 17 2003, 04:44 PM, said:

I always figure the person opening a topic should get the first shot at defining the discussion but if you don't define it, I'm at a loss to know what about it interested you.
I didn't want to define the subject on my terms. It's a touchy subject, and I'd rather not force touchy discussions to move in a particular way.

I have often wondered if Roe v. Wade would hold up if introduced today. It was a case about privacy, and only tangentially about abortion, and I still can't figure out how it became "the abortion case." I'm not even sure if abortion, on its own, has ever been placed under the judicial microscope.

Plus, we know so much more about the development of unborn children, and the effects of abortion on women's health. (The link to breast cancer, for example.)

So, if it's good law, it should hold up to renewed scrutiny. If it's not, overturn it. And if abortion should be legal, another, better case should decide that.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#14 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:55 AM

AnneZo, on Jun 17 2003, 04:44 PM, said:

I always figure the person opening a topic should get the first shot at defining the discussion but if you don't define it, I'm at a loss to know what about it interested you.
I didn't want to define the subject on my terms. It's a touchy subject, and I'd rather not force touchy discussions to move in a particular way.

I have often wondered if Roe v. Wade would hold up if introduced today. It was a case about privacy, and only tangentially about abortion, and I still can't figure out how it became "the abortion case." I'm not even sure if abortion, on its own, has ever been placed under the judicial microscope.

Plus, we know so much more about the development of unborn children, and the effects of abortion on women's health. (The link to breast cancer, for example.)

So, if it's good law, it should hold up to renewed scrutiny. If it's not, overturn it. And if abortion should be legal, another, better case should decide that.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#15 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:56 AM

I will say one thing.

I've read Roe v. Wade.  It's an appallingly badly reasoned decision, relying on a right to privacy that simply does not exist in the United States Constitution.


I would think however that "Roe" has no standing to challenge Roe v. Wade.  There needs to actually be a controversy first and there isn't.
Posted Image

#16 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 08:59 AM

Nikcara, on Jun 17 2003, 04:41 PM, said:

But the women who claim they didnt know the negative aspects of abortion can't really say 'they lied to me!'.  Doctors tell their patients medically what will happen, and what happens socially isn't really anything the government can/should deal with.
Tobacco, on the other hand, told smokers that nicotine wasn't addictive and that there were no real medical effects of smoking.

It's the difference of being lied to vs not researching what you're planning on doing.
But some people are staunchly against doctors informing pregnant women about what happens during an abortion and of the development of their unborn child. Many women are surprised to learn that abortion is more than just "scraping away a few cells." But that's how it's often sold. Many women would say that they WERE lied to. So maybe the similarities are a lot closer than I originally thought.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 09:01 AM

Nikcara, on Jun 17 2003, 04:41 PM, said:

But the women who claim they didnt know the negative aspects of abortion can't really say 'they lied to me!'.  Doctors tell their patients medically what will happen, and what happens socially isn't really anything the government can/should deal with.
Tobacco, on the other hand, told smokers that nicotine wasn't addictive and that there were no real medical effects of smoking.

It's the difference of being lied to vs not researching what you're planning on doing.
But some people are staunchly against doctors informing pregnant women about what happens during an abortion and of the development of their unborn child. Many women are surprised to learn that abortion is more than just "scraping away a few cells." But that's how it's often sold. Many women would say that they WERE lied to. So maybe the similarities are a lot closer than I originally thought.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 09:57 AM

Then the doctors should be held responsible for lying to their patients.  I believe that if a doctor refuses to tell their patient about a procedure and possible medical problems then the doctor should be punished.  

However, there are a lot more places to learn about the postive and negative aspects of abortion then there were about tobacco.  You can bet that if I were going through a procidure like that, I would be finding out what I could on it first.  Unless I was desperate, but if that were the case I might do something illegal to have it done anyway.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#19 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 12:06 PM

It is news-worthy.

I'm pro-choice, but I think the abortion question needs another look. Roe v. Wade reached more or less the right conclusion, IMO, but used bad logic...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#20 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 12:24 PM

Could someone enlighten me on Roe vs. Wade?

I wasn't alive back then, and haven't really studied it in school at all.

As for abortion itself...I have no idea what stance I personally have.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Roe Vs. Wade, Abortion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users