corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Ladyhawk said:
Wrong. Its called Free Speech. Frankly, I've never heard her shout. What is it about abortion that makes pro-abortion advocates demagogue their enemies so?
I believe abortion should be legal. I also support "Roe's" right to say its wrong.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
"pro-abortion advocates demagogue their enemies so?"
pro-abortion
demagogue
their enemies
hyperbole
pro-abortion
demagogue
their enemies
hyperbole
Ladyhawk
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 847
corplinx said:
I used "shout" in the vernacular. Shoot me. "Roe" is in a unique situation and there's no ignoring that. Free speech is fine. But, when you've been the poster child for a woman's right to choice and you KNEW that, from the very beginning, you put yourself in a very precarious situation when you decide to do a 180. She knows that, too, you can bet. She feels that her voice will be louder and more credible than others for that very reason. Who knows? Maybe it will. Still, she's a hypocrite.
As to your 'demagogue' question...I think it's the hypocrisy thing again. I think it has to do with a group of people, embracing the sanctity of life and, at the same time, condoning the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of physicians. Just my opinion.
I do not know Norma McCorvey personally (and I suspect none of us on this board do) so I'm going to try to avoid "mind-reading". However, I was following the story very closely at the time she switched sides (1995, as I recall) and can provide a few more details of the story.
The details I am recounting here (from memory) are things that were reported in a sufficient number of what I considered to be reliable sources (and verified by details in unreliable sources, once one stripped off all the spin and got down to any factual statements) for me to accept this as a reasonable picture of why she changed sides. These are primarily things that McCorvey herself said to explain her conversion and to describe how her new life was going.
1. While McCorvey had been anonymously-famous (hows that for an oxymoron) for a brief time after the Roe decision came down, she was largely ignored by the women's movement in general and the abortion-rights movement in particular.
She recounted several times how she had attended rallies but not been invited to speak or take any prominent role because, or so she felt, the well-to-do women in leadership roles looked down at her as crude, uneducated, someone who would present a bad image.
Mc Corvey lived a hard life, filled with poverty, abuse, alcohol and drugs. She would have liked to have received some attention, some friendship, some consideration. She felt she didn't get it.
At one rally, she said, she had happened to mention to one of the other women there that she was the Roe of Roe v Wade. "Oh, no!" the woman had told her. "I know the woman who was Roe and you're nothing like her." (My suspicion, on reading that anecdote, is the other woman was thinking of Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued the Roe case, who did get invited to speak at rallies and appear on television and be in the limelight -- all the things that, in reading McCorvey's accounts it seemed plain to me McCorvey would have loved to be included in.
2. Around 1994, McCorvey did begin to get a little more attention. A book about her, I Am Roe, came out, and she was helping out (as a volunteer?) at a Dallas abortion clinic.
During the late 1980s there had been a wave of excitement in the Pro-Life Movement about "rescues" -- attempts to blockade, occupy, or otherwise close down abortion clinics in a manner similar to the sit-ins of the 1960s. Operation Rescue as a mass sit-in movement largely fell apart by the early 1990s, but various splinters continued to exist and to wage campaigns in different cities. One of those splinters was active in Dallas at this time, under the leadership of Flip Benham, and one of the main clinics Benham and his followers were targetting was the one McCorvey was connected to.
Benham and his followers were able to buy office space adjoining the clinic, which brought Benham and McCorvey into frequent close contact.
Initially McCorvey was inclined to talk angrily to Benham, call him names, insult him, swear at him. Benham, however, responded kindly and with genuine friendship, something McCorvey had been sorely craving and not getting. They struck up a "friendly enemies" relationship, which evolved into friendship, and led to McCorvey converting to Christianity (I forget which denomination) and switching sides in the abortion debate.
3. Initially her conversion, both to Christianity and to opposing abortion, was somewhat tentative. She was, for instance, still involved in a long-time lesbian relationship, and in some of the early interviews after her side-switch she said clearly that if it came to having to choose between her life-partner and her new religion she would give up the new religion.
(It was very interesting to read how the conservative Christians who were welcoming her into their fold dealt with this -- some very creative spinning, both verbal and positional, was needed, and Benham met the challenge brilliantly. I can't do justice to it here, but one thing I remember was Benham explaining their relationship didn't really bother God because McCorvey and her partner were too old to have sex, that they were living together as non-sexual lovers and so it was okay and even kind of beautiful and he was glad McCorvey was being loyal to her friend in refusing to give her up even if it meant damnation...)
4. McCorvey continued to receive the kind of friendship and attention from the Pro-Life people that she had craved and not received from the Pro-Choice people. She was eagerly welcomed as an invited guest at meetings and events -- a new experience for her, to have people want to put her forward in the public eye instead of wanting to shut her off away from the media.
The more welcome she was made to feel, the more she continued to solidify her position as a believer in god and an opponent of abortion. She now has her own anti-abortion ministry which is referred to and praised by other abortion opponents, and she is receiving friendship and respect (and, I believe, better monetary compensation) that she did not enjoy in her former life.
(5) Nothing in what she has said or written leads me to believe she was ever deeply ideologically committed to supporting abortion rights. I am willing to believe she may now be deeply ideologically committed to opposing abortion. But the reasons for that conversion, in my opinion, have less to do with any feelings of guilt for the abortion she never had or feelings of remorse that her case was the one that feminist lawyers used to strike down abortion laws. Rather, from what I can see, her conversion is a very human reaction to finally being welcomed into a community and treated with respect after a lifetime of being abused and discarded.
(There may or may not be a lesson here for rational people to learn about the comparative effects of abusing people versus treating them with respect. But I'll leave that for another thread.)
The details I am recounting here (from memory) are things that were reported in a sufficient number of what I considered to be reliable sources (and verified by details in unreliable sources, once one stripped off all the spin and got down to any factual statements) for me to accept this as a reasonable picture of why she changed sides. These are primarily things that McCorvey herself said to explain her conversion and to describe how her new life was going.
1. While McCorvey had been anonymously-famous (hows that for an oxymoron) for a brief time after the Roe decision came down, she was largely ignored by the women's movement in general and the abortion-rights movement in particular.
She recounted several times how she had attended rallies but not been invited to speak or take any prominent role because, or so she felt, the well-to-do women in leadership roles looked down at her as crude, uneducated, someone who would present a bad image.
Mc Corvey lived a hard life, filled with poverty, abuse, alcohol and drugs. She would have liked to have received some attention, some friendship, some consideration. She felt she didn't get it.
At one rally, she said, she had happened to mention to one of the other women there that she was the Roe of Roe v Wade. "Oh, no!" the woman had told her. "I know the woman who was Roe and you're nothing like her." (My suspicion, on reading that anecdote, is the other woman was thinking of Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued the Roe case, who did get invited to speak at rallies and appear on television and be in the limelight -- all the things that, in reading McCorvey's accounts it seemed plain to me McCorvey would have loved to be included in.
2. Around 1994, McCorvey did begin to get a little more attention. A book about her, I Am Roe, came out, and she was helping out (as a volunteer?) at a Dallas abortion clinic.
During the late 1980s there had been a wave of excitement in the Pro-Life Movement about "rescues" -- attempts to blockade, occupy, or otherwise close down abortion clinics in a manner similar to the sit-ins of the 1960s. Operation Rescue as a mass sit-in movement largely fell apart by the early 1990s, but various splinters continued to exist and to wage campaigns in different cities. One of those splinters was active in Dallas at this time, under the leadership of Flip Benham, and one of the main clinics Benham and his followers were targetting was the one McCorvey was connected to.
Benham and his followers were able to buy office space adjoining the clinic, which brought Benham and McCorvey into frequent close contact.
Initially McCorvey was inclined to talk angrily to Benham, call him names, insult him, swear at him. Benham, however, responded kindly and with genuine friendship, something McCorvey had been sorely craving and not getting. They struck up a "friendly enemies" relationship, which evolved into friendship, and led to McCorvey converting to Christianity (I forget which denomination) and switching sides in the abortion debate.
3. Initially her conversion, both to Christianity and to opposing abortion, was somewhat tentative. She was, for instance, still involved in a long-time lesbian relationship, and in some of the early interviews after her side-switch she said clearly that if it came to having to choose between her life-partner and her new religion she would give up the new religion.
(It was very interesting to read how the conservative Christians who were welcoming her into their fold dealt with this -- some very creative spinning, both verbal and positional, was needed, and Benham met the challenge brilliantly. I can't do justice to it here, but one thing I remember was Benham explaining their relationship didn't really bother God because McCorvey and her partner were too old to have sex, that they were living together as non-sexual lovers and so it was okay and even kind of beautiful and he was glad McCorvey was being loyal to her friend in refusing to give her up even if it meant damnation...)
4. McCorvey continued to receive the kind of friendship and attention from the Pro-Life people that she had craved and not received from the Pro-Choice people. She was eagerly welcomed as an invited guest at meetings and events -- a new experience for her, to have people want to put her forward in the public eye instead of wanting to shut her off away from the media.
The more welcome she was made to feel, the more she continued to solidify her position as a believer in god and an opponent of abortion. She now has her own anti-abortion ministry which is referred to and praised by other abortion opponents, and she is receiving friendship and respect (and, I believe, better monetary compensation) that she did not enjoy in her former life.
(5) Nothing in what she has said or written leads me to believe she was ever deeply ideologically committed to supporting abortion rights. I am willing to believe she may now be deeply ideologically committed to opposing abortion. But the reasons for that conversion, in my opinion, have less to do with any feelings of guilt for the abortion she never had or feelings of remorse that her case was the one that feminist lawyers used to strike down abortion laws. Rather, from what I can see, her conversion is a very human reaction to finally being welcomed into a community and treated with respect after a lifetime of being abused and discarded.
(There may or may not be a lesson here for rational people to learn about the comparative effects of abusing people versus treating them with respect. But I'll leave that for another thread.)
KelvinG
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,387
It's certainly a lot easier for a woman who is past child bearing age to start condeming abortion than for a woman who is facing the decision of getting one.
This is what has always bothered me about the abortion debate. As a man, I've never been arrogant enough to propose that I know whether abortion is right or wrong. Since I'll never be faced with making such a decision, who am I to condemn others who do.
I'm sure that most woman who undergo the procedure are scared, unsure, often alone, and generally in a bad emotional state. This appears where Norma McCorvey was when she had her abortion. But now, years later she is suddenly against abortion. I believe this has less to do with her becoming a Christian, and more to do with the fact that it's easier to decry abortion from afar, than if you are the person getting one. For this reason I believe her stance is hypocritical.
Even if I was morally opposed to abortion, I wouldn't try and force someone else to abide by my value system, when I'll never be faced with the difficult decision of getting an abortion.
It's a lot easier for Norma McCorvey to take this stand against abortion many years after her own, and at a point where she'll never have to face this decision again.
I recall talking to a friend years ago who did counselling for women who were considering abortion. She said she talked to quite a few women who "opposed" abortion, but believed their own circusmstance was unique. They denounced abortion as generally immoral and wrong, but were choosing to get an abortion because their situation was "different."
Funny how when it becomes personal, our value system changes.
This is why I'm skeptical of McCorvey. When she was desperate for an abortion, she did everything she could to get one. (ie. the situation was personal)
Now, past child-bearing age and a born again Christian, she condemns abortion as wrong. She might want to remember back to what it was like to be that 21 year old girl who was desperate and likely afraid when faced with such a stressful decision.
This is what has always bothered me about the abortion debate. As a man, I've never been arrogant enough to propose that I know whether abortion is right or wrong. Since I'll never be faced with making such a decision, who am I to condemn others who do.
I'm sure that most woman who undergo the procedure are scared, unsure, often alone, and generally in a bad emotional state. This appears where Norma McCorvey was when she had her abortion. But now, years later she is suddenly against abortion. I believe this has less to do with her becoming a Christian, and more to do with the fact that it's easier to decry abortion from afar, than if you are the person getting one. For this reason I believe her stance is hypocritical.
Even if I was morally opposed to abortion, I wouldn't try and force someone else to abide by my value system, when I'll never be faced with the difficult decision of getting an abortion.
It's a lot easier for Norma McCorvey to take this stand against abortion many years after her own, and at a point where she'll never have to face this decision again.
I recall talking to a friend years ago who did counselling for women who were considering abortion. She said she talked to quite a few women who "opposed" abortion, but believed their own circusmstance was unique. They denounced abortion as generally immoral and wrong, but were choosing to get an abortion because their situation was "different."
Funny how when it becomes personal, our value system changes.
This is why I'm skeptical of McCorvey. When she was desperate for an abortion, she did everything she could to get one. (ie. the situation was personal)
Now, past child-bearing age and a born again Christian, she condemns abortion as wrong. She might want to remember back to what it was like to be that 21 year old girl who was desperate and likely afraid when faced with such a stressful decision.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
I lost a lot more respect for Norma McCorvey when I learned it was Flip Benham that orchestrated her guilt into her position change, then from the position change itself.
I also wonder if she's still in the lesbian relationship she was in at the time of her baptism?
- edited to add: And great post Nova Land.
I also wonder if she's still in the lesbian relationship she was in at the time of her baptism?
- edited to add: And great post Nova Land.
Questioninggeller
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 11, 2002
- Messages
- 3,048
dwb said:
So... lots of people change their mind about a lot of things. I am Pro-Choice, I am not a woman, but I think in that position I would like the choice... their body not mine, not religion's and not the government's.
PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
Another War! Are you prepared America?
Warning: material in the link may be considered graphic to some.
THe War on the Family
Ah, the insidious, malcontented, omni-present they... to be sure the most destructive agents of civilisation. These agents are immoral, eroding the values that are the fabric of American society.
Warning: material in the link may be considered graphic to some.
THe War on the Family
Ah, the insidious, malcontented, omni-present they... to be sure the most destructive agents of civilisation. These agents are immoral, eroding the values that are the fabric of American society.
rwald
Unregistered
R
Quick, hide that link from Jedi Knight! The last thing he needs is a group as deluded as he is!
Ladyhawk said:
Don't have sex.
Pregnancy is the logical outcome of sexual relations. Using abortion as birth control (which you claim to not support, and then explicitly condone), is a perverse abdication of responsibility.
Nobody accepts the consequences of his or her own actions anymore...
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
I recall that "Jane Roe" wound up delivering the child, mainly because it took so long for the court to hear the case. Beyond that, I'm not particularly surprised by any of this.
Flip Benham made her a friend? That's nice. I haven't seen much of that from Operation Rescue. This is certainly something I would consider a first. I never got involved with them, given the sanctimonious nature of their operations. I always figured I was doing more good by working with the women I knew personally who were enduring unwanted pregnancies, rather than being the stranger who shows up on the doorstep of an abortion clinic bleating about how EVIL people were.
I did, however, notice that no one talks about the case of Marty and Nancy Klein anymore. Am I the only one?
Flip Benham made her a friend? That's nice. I haven't seen much of that from Operation Rescue. This is certainly something I would consider a first. I never got involved with them, given the sanctimonious nature of their operations. I always figured I was doing more good by working with the women I knew personally who were enduring unwanted pregnancies, rather than being the stranger who shows up on the doorstep of an abortion clinic bleating about how EVIL people were.
I did, however, notice that no one talks about the case of Marty and Nancy Klein anymore. Am I the only one?
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Well what's important is not who is opposing Roe vs Wade, but why.
What are Roe's reasons for her change of heart?
All her stated reasons: conversion to christianity, women are no longer as punished for getting pregant before marriage, and anecdotes concerning a person being upset about an abortion are insufficient.
The anecdotes are easily countered, if not overturned by more anectdoes. As well as at odds with research. They also ignoring the fact that while abortion can be upsetting for some women, giving a child up for adoption is more so.
Merely being a christian is not a good enough reason as it violates seperation of church and state.
Woman being more free as being a reason presupposes from the onset that something is wrong with abortion from the onset.
Also some from her lawyer are:
-Life begins at birth.
So what? The issue is over personhood: not life. Cows and vegetibles are technically alive too, does the government protect their lives now?
-Woman should choose alternatives to ending human life.
Why? The fetus has not been granted personhood, whether or not it has human DNA at this point is irrelevant. This begs the question.
-Women can be pressured to have an abortion.
So what? The constitution is not mean to protect people from what their relatives may pressure them to do. As long as no literal cocercion is used: its fine. Women are pressured to send their kids into adoption as well, that mean adoption should be outlawed?
What are Roe's reasons for her change of heart?
All her stated reasons: conversion to christianity, women are no longer as punished for getting pregant before marriage, and anecdotes concerning a person being upset about an abortion are insufficient.
The anecdotes are easily countered, if not overturned by more anectdoes. As well as at odds with research. They also ignoring the fact that while abortion can be upsetting for some women, giving a child up for adoption is more so.
Merely being a christian is not a good enough reason as it violates seperation of church and state.
Woman being more free as being a reason presupposes from the onset that something is wrong with abortion from the onset.
Also some from her lawyer are:
-Life begins at birth.
So what? The issue is over personhood: not life. Cows and vegetibles are technically alive too, does the government protect their lives now?
-Woman should choose alternatives to ending human life.
Why? The fetus has not been granted personhood, whether or not it has human DNA at this point is irrelevant. This begs the question.
-Women can be pressured to have an abortion.
So what? The constitution is not mean to protect people from what their relatives may pressure them to do. As long as no literal cocercion is used: its fine. Women are pressured to send their kids into adoption as well, that mean adoption should be outlawed?
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Isn't that assuming such sex and abortion are wrong at the onset?
Isn't that circular reasoning?
I'd sooner say a policy that advocated no sex, or made the act of having sex some sort of dire risk or punishment was evil, then the act of terminating a fetus whose very features and intellect rivaled a fish.
That's like saying if you don't want to get "date raped" don't "go on dates." if you don't want to risk being sold poisoned or bad meat "don't eat meat."
No, to sex being wrong. Yes, to abortion being wrong.DialecticMaterialist said:
How so?
I did not say sex was evil. I merely pointed out the logical biological outcome of sexual relations is usually the creation of a new life.
Um, no. It's not. Your analogies are flawed. They both involve the unfortunate victim (raped woman, and food poisoned) not being responsible for her actions.
I am speaking directly to responsibility of one's own actions.
Cut it out with the hyperbole. It's unnecessary.
rwald
Unregistered
R
So, you'd say that abortions resulting from rape would be morally justified? If so, you're not as much of an extremist as I thought.
Personally, I think that a woman should maybe be given a specific number of abortions that she can have, and after that point she'll just have to carry the baby. I can understand if she uses it as a birth control method once or twice, but more than that is unjustified.
Personally, I think that a woman should maybe be given a specific number of abortions that she can have, and after that point she'll just have to carry the baby. I can understand if she uses it as a birth control method once or twice, but more than that is unjustified.
rwald said:So, you'd say that abortions resulting from rape would be morally justified? If so, you're not as much of an extremist as I thought.
I'm not 100% sure. I've been mulling that over for years now. Considering the low occurrence of rape-induced pregnancies, I'm still unsure whether it requires a special provision or not.
Still thinking about it...
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Ah but you said a person should "take responsibility" for having sex. Responsibility is an act someone should be punished or rewarded for. Having to carry a fetus one doesn't want is not a reward, so it is a punishment. Thus you are saying sex should be punished.
Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control because women should be responsible...
Sounds like you are saying from the onset that abortion used as birth control is wrong, as it is not responsible.
What is so irresponsible about using abortion to terminate the embryo exactly?
No actually, according to biology this is a rare outcome. At even the most fertile times human females only have a 30 percent chance of becoming pregant.
But that's irrelevant. Ok you can become pregnant from having sex...so what?
Until you then prove there is something wrong with using abortion to take care of the problem you have no case.
A woman can then get pregant without worry due to abortion. What is wrong with that ultimately? Before you can say getting pregant is a consequence you have to show that an already developed solution is wrong.
That's like if scientists developed a pill or easy means to take care of cholesterol. Saying that taking the pill is wrong because you should "know the consequences" of eating fattening foods presumes from the onset that taking the pill to avoid this consequence was wrong.
Well she "chose" to go on the date, knowing the possible consequences. Likewise the man "chose" to eat meat, knowing it might be poisoned. How is that any different then the woman choosing to have sex knowing she might get pregant? And how does this make the easy solution to such a "consequence" immoral or irresponsible?
You are presuming responsibility to the fetus from the onset.
No you are presuming it.
In this case I can say the responsible thing is to get an abortion to avoid the negative consequence.
Here you are being ambiguous. Yes she is "responsible" in the sense that she knows she can get pregant from having sex. But that does not automatically mean she is likewise responsible in the sense that she has to carry the fetus when there is an easy solution to the problem.
Smoking can cause cancer. But if a pill was invented to cure it saying that I should "be responsible" and not take the pill is silly. As it assumes from the onset that I should avoid the solution to your stated problem. But why should I do this?
Aren't you presuming that accepting a negative consequence is more "responsible" then implementing a solution?
Likewise a woman can get pregnant from sex, but why avoid the easy solution to your stated problem? You have merely shown that the woman can expect to get pregant, not that she should continue to carry the fetus.
What hyperbole? Isn't that itself a false charge fallacy?
In any event, do you think abortion is murder?