• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade: Recanting of the reversal

Segnosaur

Penultimate Amazing
Segnosaur
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
21,807
Location
Canada, eh?
Haven't seen anything about this, but I thought it might be of some interest.

Remember Roe v. Wade? (The supreme court case that struck down various abortion laws.) The woman behind it caused a little controversy when she later came out on the Anti-Abortion side. But, there might be a bit more to the story.

From: BBC
Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe in the US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade, shocked the country in 1995 when she came out against abortion. But in new footage, McCorvey alleges she was paid to switch sides....In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals. (The article doesn't go into details about why she did so, other than 'she was paid', if she had financial problems, etc.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Haven't seen anything about this, but I thought it might be of some interest.

Remember Roe v. Wade? (The supreme court case that struck down various abortion laws.) The woman behind it caused a little controversy when she later came out on the Anti-Abortion side. But, there might be a bit more to the story.

From: BBC
Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe in the US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade, shocked the country in 1995 when she came out against abortion. But in new footage, McCorvey alleges she was paid to switch sides....In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals. (The article doesn't go into details about why she did so, other than 'she was paid', if she had financial problems, etc.)
Click to expand...

In my observations, questions of "Why did you....." rarely have simple, concise, answers. Human motivations are complex, and saying someone, including yourself, did something because "X" rarely gives the whole story. There are usually a lot of factors, and difficult decisions.

Here's what I know of the story. Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe became pregnant, wanted an abortion, but it was against the law. She sued, and won. However, needless to say, Supreme Court cases take longer than pregnancies. The baby was born, and given up for adoption.

At some point, people, I don't remember who, went looking for the baby, and found her. I don't know how. Whoever it was and however they knew, they found Norma McCorvey's biological daughter, who was then in her early 20s. I remember reading the story of how the people who had been looking for her met the young woman, with the adoptive parents, at a lunchtime meeting. The young woman knew she had been adopted, but knew nothing of her birth mother. She had been raised by evangelicals, and was staunchly pro-life. The family knew that the man had information about the birth mother and, given the way he was acting, wondered if it might be someone famous. At that meeting, he revealed the story, and the young woman's identity as the baby at the center of the Roe v. Wade case.

It was an emotional time for all involved, as these things frequently are when there are both adoptive and biological parents involved, and throw in some deeply held religious beliefs, and, just for good measure, lots of public attention and what might be the single most contentious issue of our lifetimes, and which touches on at least one person's very existence.

McCorvey and her biological daughter met. McCorvey denounced abortion and accepted Jesus. Evangelicals did indeed use them for promotion of their cause. Apparently, cash changed hands.

So exactly "why" did McCorvey do what she did? I don't think there's a simple answer.
 
Segnosaur said:
Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals.
Click to expand...

That's if you trust the documentary. Its accuracy is being disputed. And she's not around to set the record straight in either case.
 
*Shrugs* Outside of a minor historical bit of trivia this hardly really matters all this much.

Oh I'm sure the two sides will be fighting over who gets the points deducted for this for a while, but beyond that what's to discuss? Jane Doe / Norma McCovey was, let us be honest here, a symbolic part of the overall abortion debate, not a lynchpin or litmus test of it. Any fall, raise, or combination of from grace by anyone's definition she has undergone doesn't change anything, even within her own single set of circumstances and even less so to any other woman's.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's if you trust the documentary. Its accuracy is [URL/"https:/ /www.facebook.com/ BenhamBrothers/posts/3011834892236481"]being disputed[/URL]. And she's not around to set the record straight in either case.
Click to expand...

Here is one for those who want to know what they are clicking. A facebook post from some guy who admits he hasn't even seen this documentary disputing facts in that documentary.

some guy on facebook said:
Having only seen the Trailer of the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, I looked up the guy who did the documentary (Nick Sweeney) ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's if you trust the documentary. Its accuracy is being disputed. And she's not around to set the record straight in either case.
Click to expand...

"I know you have her on tape making explicit statements, but she was a compulsive liar, and you can take my word for it because I'm one of the people who paid her" isn't the most convincing of arguments.
 
carlitos said:
Here is one for those who want to know what they are clicking. A facebook post from some guy who admits he hasn't even seen this documentary disputing facts in that documentary.
Click to expand...

It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
 
The fact that she so easily changed her position for money proves that the abortion movement is void of ethics [/conservative talking point]
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
Click to expand...

And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
 
So we have to choose between her being a liar for money, or a compulsive liar who was paid to adovcate their position? Which one of these exactly is supposed to make her more or less sympathetic?

The fact that she was paid to do this seems to be totally undisputed, it is just what she felt about it, and we have to either take her words for it or accept that she was a compulsive liar being exploited for jesus. Jesus loves bearing false witness after all it is right from the book of Trump.
 
johnny karate said:
And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
Click to expand...

Have you vetted McCorvey? Are you demanding others do so? No, of course not. Why question what you want to believe?

He's a primary source. Quoting from him is no different than quoting from McCorvey.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
Click to expand...



Yes, that's why we allow hearsay at criminal trials. If someone says that someone else told them something, they are considered a "first-hand source." Great argument. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom