Roe v. Wade: Recanting of the reversal

[johnny karate]

You're right. I mixed up McCorvey's name with Schenck. Schenck is who I meant. That was a stupid mistake.

Fair enough.

But Schenck’s doesn’t require vetting. We already have him on camera clearly being who he is claiming to be. Furthermore, he is merely corroborating the primary source, that being McCorvey herself. We don’t have to take his word for anything. We already have hers.

Your source, on the other hand, is just a Facebook post. Like every other post on the Internet, we have no way of knowing if the person who authored that post is really who they claim to be. And if we do, you have yet to provide it.

And this alleged secondary source is directly contradicting the primary source. It takes a hell of lot more than just their word for that to be convincing.

 

[This is The End]

lmao @ Ziggurat's posts in this thead

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As usual the commandment against bearing false witness turns out to be completely optional.

Funny that. Combined with adultery, bearing false witness are the most ignored 10 Commandments.

Or maybe that Golden Calf worship thing, that's right up there, false gods before the real God.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

You doubt Jesus?

 

[Giordano]

You doubt Jesus?

As it turns out I am a Jewish atheist, so that’s kind of a double whammy on Jesus belief.

 

[Allen773]

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.

You're welcome.

 

[Giordano]

Okay, The Daily Mall claims to have an exclusive interview with Schenck in which he admits to the story told in the documentary:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ane-Roe-450k-face-anti-abortion-movement.html

Yes I know the reputation of the Daily Mall and I provided this link as much for entertainment as for veracity. Plus I assumed it would be posted here sooner or later by someone else if not by me.

I also assume that Schenck will eventually deny this news story if the Daily Mail is simply lying about it. Should prove interesting...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Goddamnit!

I demand a recount!

EDIT: Dude, that's a low bar!

Is this the time to point out that speed isn't always something to boast about?

 

[pgwenthold]

Okay, The Daily Mall claims to have an exclusive interview with Schenck in which he admits to the story told in the documentary:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ane-Roe-450k-face-anti-abortion-movement.html

Yes I know the reputation of the Daily Mall and I provided this link as much for entertainment as for veracity. Plus I assumed it would be posted here sooner or later by someone else if not by me.

I also assume that Schenck will eventually deny this news story if the Daily Mail is simply lying about it. Should prove interesting...

He can try to deny it but my understanding is that they "have the receipts" as it were, and have identified at least $450k that has been given to her from these organizations.

The denial I heard attempted was that they didn't pay her, they just helped her get back on her feet. So generous of them...

 

[Giordano]

He can try to deny it but my understanding is that they "have the receipts" as it were, and have identified at least $450k that has been given to her from these organizations.

The denial I heard attempted was that they didn't pay her, they just helped her get back on her feet. So generous of them...

Yes, that's what I read too. Apparently it was just like providing some canned food to a person down on their luck: $450,000 of canned food.

It was really a classic non-denial. I didn't pay her (read: the money was not from my personal finances). We just helped her back on her feet (read: the money was from church accounts that I controlled, to the tune of nearly half a million dollars). Also left unsaid, of course, was that her part of the deal was to say whatever she was told to say by the anti-abortionists.

But I agree that the importance of the Supreme Court ruling is not rooted in one person pseudonym'ed Jane Roe. The documentary, IMO, is most important in terms of removing "Ms Norma" as a poster child for the anti-abortion groups and as an illustration of their lack of honesty as they manipulate others. "Pious" people who will do anything, support anyone, to achieve their goals. Either because they think God is behind them, or, for many, as a cynical means to exploit others to gain political support.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Of course it is. And there's lots of video of Ms. McCorvey details the anti-abortion nutters behaviour.

 

[catsmate]

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.

How unsurprising, especially given the Benham brothers are xian anti-abortion nutcases.

 

[Segnosaur]

How unsurprising, especially given the Benham brothers are xian anti-abortion nutcases.

That is not quite fair.

They are also anti-homosexual nutcases too.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Cain]

If what she's saying in this interview is true, then she's a proven liar, and you can't believe anything she says.

 

[carlitos]

That is not quite fair.

They are also anti-homosexual nutcases too.

I just did a google image search, and my long-distance gaydar is pinging.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My long-distance gaydar is pinging.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

It has value as propaganda.

Sure, the individual inclinations of Roe don't weigh into the legal battle. But the law is not some truth delivered from Heaven. It comes from judges, and judges are politicians.

There is a path to reversing Roe v. Wade, and it isn't through crafting the correct legal argument. It's through politics. It's about the Right winning enough seats and having the political willpower to appoint anti-choice judges. It's conceivable that Roe v. Wade is practically undermined, if not outright reversed, within my lifetime. One or two more SCOTUS justices from the Federalist Society and it's game over for at least a generation.

In that battle, propaganda is useful.

 

[Segnosaur]

If what she's saying in this interview is true, then she's a proven liar, and you can't believe anything she says.

In a way you are right... A big change in how events are stated certainly challenges credibility.

But she has supporting evidence... Statements from anti-abortion activists who claim they "helped" her (even though they didn't call it a "payment", it was pretty much what they were doing).

Plus, anti-abortion activists also lack credibility... So who is more trustworthy: someone who lies once or twice or someone who lies constantly.



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...end-abortion-is-america-still-a-free-country?

"....It’s the worst possible outcome: according to a draft majority opinion published by Politico, the US supreme court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade, along with its sister decision Planned Parenthood v Casey. This momentous ruling will result in abortion becoming immediately illegal in an estimated 26 states when it is officially issued, likely sometime next month.​

 

[The Don]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...end-abortion-is-america-still-a-free-country?

"....It’s the worst possible outcome: according to a draft majority opinion published by Politico, the US supreme court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade, along with its sister decision Planned Parenthood v Casey. This momentous ruling will result in abortion becoming immediately illegal in an estimated 26 states when it is officially issued, likely sometime next month.​

The inhabitants of those 26 states will be like the dog that finally caught the car once this happens and they have to live with the consequences.

Then again I suppose the number of religious nutjobs in those states combined with people too old and too young for this to have a direct effect upon means that the number of people who will actually suffer will be comparatively small and largely be confined to people who really don't matter - the poor and/or members of minorities.