Allen773
Graduate Poster
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Roe v. Wade: Recanting of the reversal
- Thread starter Segnosaur
- Start date
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
How do you vet someone for their own personal feelings? That the paying of $450,000 took place seems to be totally uncontested.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,055
Now you've done it. You've committed heresy, prepare for excommunication.
There it is. Get up on that cross Zigg! Wear that hair shirt!
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
I have to say this is a great way to start general digressions and yet has nothing to do with the OP. Truly a work of art and creating thread drift.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
First of all, as others have pointed out, its a facebook post... and facebook isn't exactly known for its journalistic integrity.
Secondly, its a claim from some anti-abortion zealots known as the Benham Brothers. But even if they themselves didn't pay McCorvey, how exactly can they know whether other evangelicals paid her or not? Are they omniscient?
Lastly, they are evangelicals. Given current events (their support of Trump for example, a man who is about as far from 'Jebus' as a politician can get), there is very little reason to believe that they have any integrity at all.
I suggest just reading the link to discover the identity of the individuals and their attempts to deny the documentary. There is no reason for me to attempt to counter it, the link discredits itself. I will only bother to cite two of its arguments.
“Having only seen the Trailer of the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, I looked up the guy who did the documentary (Nick Sweeney) and found that he is involved in some very odd stuff, like Transgender Robots and all things sexual revolution. I had no idea (even when he interviewed me)... Without knowing Christ, it would be impossible for Mr. Sweeney to understand the real Norma McCorvey and the transformation Jesus did in her life. Sweeney knew her for a few months - I knew her for more than three decades.”
And:
“I saw that he got Miss Norma on tape saying some pretty outrageous things. Again, I have not seen the full video, but that was just Norma being Norma. Those who knew her best, know this. She was, indeed, utterly unfiltered and a whole lot of fun. Yet, she could also be very fickle and hard-headed (just like me!) And she said many things that were simply not true at times, only to come back and set the record straight. This was simply part of her maturing walk with Jesus.”
In fact this “dispute” of the accuracy of the movie does not specifically deny any of the facts in the documentary so much as claim that surely Miss Norma must have been kidding! And attempt to dismiss the movie because the film maker is not Christian enough! If you read the link, even the statement by the Bentham brothers that they “didn’t pay Miss Norma a penny “is immediately followed by the admission that they and their followers “helped her back on her feet” by donations, etc. pretty transparent that money changed hands (in fact $100,000s of dollars according to the movie) but just not the personal cash of the Bentham brothers.
This rebuttal of the movie left me more convinced of the accuracy of the movie than I was before.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,055
Do you think Alexis Johnson (CEO of Planned Parenthood) is dishonest in her belief in abortion rights because she gets paid to promote them? She's made a lot more than $450k for her promotion of abortion rights. The existence of payments is rather insufficient to prove malign motives. That has to cut both ways, or not at all.
Perhaps the dishonest part comes from the fact that the payments to “Mss Norma” were done secretly, together with her statement in the movie that she was just acting the part and saying what her employers told her to say? Perhaps?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
That’s a remarkably stupid thing to say.
McCorvey is on camera saying what she said. That’s a firsthand account.
What you’re providing is a secondhand account from a source you haven’t even established is reliable.
Does it really need to be explained to you why one is better than the other?
And yet somehow it gets stupider.
How do you know that he’s a primary source?
And quoting the person who actually made the statement is not even remotely the same thing as quoting another person making a claim about what the first person really meant.
ETA: And come to think of it, he’s not a primary source. At best he’s a secondary source. There’s only one primary source for what McCorvey thinks and feels, and that’s McCorvey
Last edited:
I have nine bingo cards running from different threads. A red herring helps fill 7 of them. But I still need a “completely made up hypothetical scenario that attempts to justify an unsupported opinion” to get bingo.
This in particular. An absolutely perfect example of who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
Ron Obvious
Graduate Poster
Why?
Back on topic: I don't frankly care about what Jane Roe said or recanted. The abortion rights issue doesn't stand or fall on any person's say so any more than a hypothetical biologist recanting belief in evolution casts doubt on the theory of evolution.
That's the difference between the religious mindset, where argument from authority is frankly about the only argument, and the sceptical one where it's a logical fallacy.
Belz...
Fiend God
And the truth is, often we don't really know why we do what we do.
I thought it might be worth pointing that out again.
Roe V Wade was not a Supreme Court decision on one individual woman's right to have an abortion.
So this one woman, again, is not litmus test or canary in the coal mine or sacrificial lamb or any other metaphor or representative of any side of the abortion debate.
So this one woman, again, is not litmus test or canary in the coal mine or sacrificial lamb or any other metaphor or representative of any side of the abortion debate.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Indeed. Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey was just one person, one of many, many, women who wanted an abortion who couldn't get one. Our legal system requires a genuine, flesh and blood, person to be represented in a case, so she was it, but she was just a standin for lots and lots of women of her time and for the future who wanted or would someday want to have an abortion.
What she did after the case was decided doesn't really have anything to do with how we ought to view abortion. Should abortion be legal? Is abortion a constitutional right? Those are two, separate, questions, both of which are interesting, and neither of which are influenced or informed by the fact that one woman who once sought an abortion received money to participate in anti-abortion activity, but remained conflicted about the whole issue all the way until her death.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,055
You're right. I mixed up McCorvey's name with Schenck. Schenck is who I meant. That was a stupid mistake.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
But it makes a wonderful narrative for those peddling lies about the percentage of women who regret having abortions. Oddly they never bring up the percentage of women who regret not having and abortion for some reason.
So this undermines more of their propaganda, while of course making no meaningful contribution on the subject. But lying is a fundamental part of the anti abortion movement do why should they give up their preferred weapon?