"Roe" seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade

Samus

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
1,001
Interesting article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33113

The woman known as "Roe" in the historic Supreme Court case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is filing a motion in federal court today to overturn the 1973 decision.

The Roe v. Wade ruling should be set aside because of changes in law and new research that make the prior decision "no longer just," argues Allan E. Parker, Jr., lead attorney for the San Antonio, Texas-based Justice Foundation.
Click to expand...
Thoughts? The article mentions she is now a pro-life Christian, and wants the decision overturned so "the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders."
 
If this isn't proof positive that there is no real separation of church and state, than I don't know what is.

I do not condone abortion as a sole means of birth control. However, until there is a 100% safe and effective method that a woman can employ (without having to depend on the man's cooperation), abortion has to be available. I still believe that it is ultimately a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Funny how someone who took full advantage of the ruling feels she is now in a position to deny that same freedom to others.
 
I dont know why she bothered to become born again. She's gonna burn in hell next to Hitler and Walt Disney.
 
This woman has been talking this talk for the last several years and she is one of the darlings of the 'Right to Life' movement.

Once she appeared on the steps of the US Supreme Court during a large Pro-Life rally and asked for the Roe v. Wade ruling to be overturned. The court, of course, did not pay any attention to her grand-standing.
 
Ladyhawk said:
I do not condone abortion as a sole means of birth control. However, until there is a 100% safe and effective method that a woman can employ (without having to depend on the man's cooperation), abortion has to be available.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to accept this position more than any other. I actually don't have a strong opinion on abortion either way, but this seems to be the most logical conclusion.

Of course, the argument that abortion should be outlawed "because god said..." is just downright foolish. I can understand the argument that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is taking a life. Based on your definition of "life", that may be true.

Meh, it's for the courts to decide I guess. I just thought it interesting that this woman just pulled a 180 like that.
 
Yeah, "Roe" is a creature of the Fundies now. The thing that chaps my butt so much is that she liked the law just fine when she needed it, but now that she has "matured" she wants do deprive others of the freedom she had.
 
Tricky said:
Yeah, "Roe" is a creature of the Fundies now. The thing that chaps my butt so much is that she liked the law just fine when she needed it, but now that she has "matured" she wants do deprive others of the freedom she had.
Click to expand...

You have to imagine what she must go through. She never thought that her private matter would lead the way for late term infanticide or the millions of innocent lives snuffed out by abortion. She most likely sees herself as guilty of opening the floodgates of a socially acceptable holocaust.

She isn't a creature of the fundies. She is a person suffering from an awful amount of guilt. Many of us think that an abortion before the third trimester is a personal or religious matter and not a concern of the government, yet even we who support privacy realize that 35 million abortions from 1973 to 1997 is grotesque.

Can you blame her for switching sides? I don't agree with her new position but I at least have sympathy for her.
 
corplinx said:


You have to imagine what she must go through. She never thought that her private matter would lead the way for late term infanticide or the millions of innocent lives snuffed out by abortion. She most likely sees herself as guilty of opening the floodgates of a socially acceptable holocaust.

She isn't a creature of the fundies. She is a person suffering from an awful amount of guilt. Many of us think that an abortion before the third trimester is a personal or religious matter and not a concern of the government, yet even we who support privacy realize that 35 million abortions from 1973 to 1997 is grotesque.

Can you blame her for switching sides? I don't agree with her new position but I at least have sympathy for her.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I for one have no sympathy, or respect, for anyone that lives by "do as I say, not as I do". She chose to pursue her right to an abortion and she got it. She has absolutely no business telling anyone that they shouldn't have the same right. I don't care how much guilt she's suffering from. Let her take it up with her shrink...not the Supreme Court.
 
arcticpenguin said:
Every sperm is sacred.
Click to expand...

Every sperm is great....
If a sperm gets wasted...
God gets quite irate....

Monty Python. The ultimate philosophers.
 
Ladyhawk said:
If this isn't proof positive that there is no real separation of church and state, than I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
This is hardly proof positive of that, so we should consider the second possibility.

;)
 
ceo_esq said:


"... then I don't know what is."
Click to expand...

Sorry...I'm not as easily inclined to insult posters with whom I disagree as easily as some do on this board so I'm going to take a civil approach to your response.

It seems clear that this lady has been influenced a great deal by her newfound Christian faith and it would appear that she openly admits to this. And while I recognize that not all opponents of abortion are motivated by mythical legends or religious beliefs, I think it's a fair statement to say that the majority are. As a result , these folks lobby for state and/or federal government to pass laws that limit everyone else's right to choice. The overwhelming majority of arguments I've heard against abortion have been based on religious belief. It seems to me that religious beliefs should not be the basis for societal law. And yet, the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide this case again. We can't seem to keep the church out of the Supreme Court. That's all I'm saying.
 
How she came to feel such guilt might make an interesting story. It is interesting that her method of dealing with her guilt is to attempt to deny others the right to make this chioce themselves. Which says, to me, that it is not about guilt. It is about forcing her vision of morality on others.

She could erase her guilt by aggressivley working to make abortion unecessary: demand factual and complete sex education in all schools, demand condoms be dispensed freely everywhere young people congregate, demand unfettered access to birth control for every woman in the country...
 
Someone tell that ego trippin Roe that she is not the owner of abortion rights. THey do not exist because of her will. The SUp Ct clarifys what rights we have. In a sense we always had these rights, Roe just happen to be the vehicle forthe Court to express this. If it wasnt her there would have been another.
 
Ladyhawk said:



Sorry, but I for one have no sympathy, or respect, for anyone that lives by "do as I say, not as I do".
Click to expand...

Yes, we all want to live in america where noone has the freedom to change their mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom