Search
Forum Home | Login
drmiler
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1

Roe V Wade?

January 18, 2005 12:04:09 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Now it seems that the originator of RoeV Wade wants it overturned. I wonder why? Repost is from NewsMax


Monday, Jan. 17, 2005 10:17 p.m. EST
McCorvey to High Court: Overturn Roe vs Wade

The woman whose case became the basis for the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion is petitioning the court to have the ruling overturned.

Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs. Wade."


McCorvey came out against abortion years ago, but her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn.
She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women.

McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, explained the legal process, telling "Hannity & Colmes": "Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment - set it aside as if it never was - on the grounds that it's no longer just."

Parker said he would be required to show that both medical and legal conditions had changed significantly since the court decided Roe vs. Wade 32-years ago.
politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
2 Pages1 2 
drmiler
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #1 January 18, 2005 1:30:08 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
as "roe" used the abortion she so hotly fought for.. she is just trying {again} to succeed in another suit that has already failed once

funny how after she gets the benifits of aborting a fetus. she does not want to offer the same to other females.

btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose. oopppppssssss there I go being moderate again.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
internet
Join Date 01/0001
+13
Reply #2 January 18, 2005 1:34:01 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
internet
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr.
Join Date 01/0001
+13
Reply #3 January 18, 2005 1:54:27 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Oh, so thee LIBAREL *lopopy* left wants there *cake* AND "eat" it to, hmmmm??????!!!!!!! tHIS PROVES *that* abortion IS "wrong". THANK *God* four NewsMax and FoxNews!!!! Mmm-Bop.

French toast, please!!!!!!!!

This post brought to you by VitriolBot.
VitriolBot. For a better, more efficient right wing trolling experience.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr. Guy
Join Date 01/0001
+13
Reply #4 January 18, 2005 1:55:30 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Oh, so thee LIBAREL *lopopy* left wants there *cake* AND "eat" it to, hmmmm??????!!!!!!! tHIS PROVES *that* abortion IS "wrong". THANK *God* four NewsMax and FoxNews!!!! Mmm-Bop.

French toast, please!!!!!!!!

This post brought to you by VitriolBot.
VitriolBot. For a better, more efficient right wing trolling experience.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #5 January 18, 2005 2:15:52 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

funny how after she gets the benifits of aborting a fetus. she does not want to offer the same to other females

Actually, she did not get the benefit.  By the time the case came to court, she had already given birth.

And anyone can have a pang of conscious, and change.  She truly has.  It is not a scam.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #6 January 18, 2005 2:17:03 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: Dr. Guy(Anonymous User)Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Oh, so thee LIBAREL *lopopy* left wants there *cake* AND "eat" it to, hmmmm??????!!!!!!! tHIS PROVES *that* abortion IS "wrong". THANK *God* four NewsMax and FoxNews!!!! Mmm-Bop.

French toast, please!!!!!!!!

This post brought to you by VitriolBot.
VitriolBot. For a better, more efficient right wing trolling experience.

Me thinks there is an imposter about.  Wonder what its point is besides its head?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #7 January 18, 2005 2:46:27 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
And anyone can have a pang of conscious, and change. She truly has. It is not a scam.


yes people can change... point taken
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
whoman69
Join Date 10/2004
0
Reply #8 January 18, 2005 3:16:58 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums
There is no statute of limitations for such a request? I am not sure what she means by legal conditions have changed.

This is not the first time she had tried to get the case overturned.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
foreverserenity
Join Date 06/2004
+76
Reply #9 January 18, 2005 3:23:44 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose.


I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose also.

I hope that her decision to request the overturn of this ruling has been truly looked at because of the ramifications if her request is granted.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #10 January 18, 2005 3:29:28 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

I hope that her decision to request the overturn of this ruling has been truly looked at because of the ramifications if her request is granted.

I dont think she has a snowball's chance in hell.  But she does have the right to work for it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
The Knitter
Join Date 01/0001
+13
Reply #11 January 18, 2005 5:55:52 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
It was one male judge who decided the original decision ..... there are mostly men in the Supreme Court ..... ... nature aborts foetuses all the time and the RC church never makes a comment on this .... but I suppose if bishops and popes got pregnant they would have a different "moral" stance on abortion ..... my views on abortion are irrelevant as I'm a male. .... don't pro death penalty groups oppose abortion and go gung=ho for war? The control of a woman's body should not be used as a political or legal football.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Fillibuster
Join Date 10/2004
0
Reply #12 January 18, 2005 7:12:46 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums
It was one male judge who decided the original decision ..... there are mostly men in the Supreme Court ..... ... nature aborts foetuses all the time and the RC church never makes a comment on this .... but I suppose if bishops and popes got pregnant they would have a different "moral" stance on abortion ..... my views on abortion are irrelevant as I'm a male. .... don't pro death penalty groups oppose abortion and go gung=ho for war? The control of a woman's body should not be used as a political or legal football.

Just so you know, nature aborting a fetus is... well... natural. The reason the Christian Right doesn't oppose natural abortions is mostly because you can't oppose Mother Nature, or as some believe, God. You can, however, protest the actions of others as unjust and wrong for society.

Also, your point that "if bishops and popes got pregnant they would have a different 'moral' stance on abortion..." is ludicrous, mainly because there has never been a female pope, and I'm not aware of any female bishops.

Finally... a woman's body shouldn't be a political or legal football, you're right. However, some people said that our loyalty to the crown shouldn't be lobbied around so lightly either. I personally think both are correct, and we need to balance somewhere in the middle.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Daiwa
Join Date 07/2001
+351
Reply #13 January 18, 2005 8:12:23 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Roe v Wade should stand. Hopefully, the court will toss her request. Abortion is and should be a personal decision with religious/moral dimensions, not a societal decision with personal dimensions.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
LeapingLizard
Join Date 10/2004
0
Reply #14 January 18, 2005 8:23:00 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women"

Well, I hope Norma doesn't mind when there is an increase in the death of women from the medical complication of back alley abortions, which happens when abortion is illegal. Abortion happens anyway, regardless of if it is legal or not. When it's not legal, women still have abortions, but they don't get proper informaion or medical care. But, ya know, Go Norma, wouldn't want women depressed or anything. Better to have 'em dead.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #15 January 19, 2005 12:50:59 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Strange that the two questions never asked by the Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood, The ACLU, NOW or even the "Right to Life" are:

Is the fetus alive?

Is the fetus Homo Sapien?

Maybe the answer might actually lead to intelligent thought, instead of the endless displays of emotion and rhetoric that has stifled the discussion.

As far as I can see, Roe Vs. Wade was made without even considering either of the all important questions.

It's ironic, many who claim to love all that is living will cry over the suffering of even the smallest animal, and will fight for the right of a rare plant to exist, but won't even consider a human fetus, alive... all in the name of being "humane"
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Furry Canary
Join Date 08/2004
+5
Reply #16 January 19, 2005 1:30:33 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
'anyone can have a pang of conscious'
We live in hope, Dr. Guy!
(I think the word you were grappling for was 'conscience'.)
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
UBoB
Join Date 06/2001
+1
Reply #17 January 19, 2005 6:54:56 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
'anyone can have a pang of conscious'
We live in hope, Dr. Guy!
(I think the word you were grappling for was 'conscience'.)


Hmm Dr. Guy, your malapropisms are showing. Or was this a humorous attempt at an intentional Freudian slip?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #18 January 19, 2005 7:34:59 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Hmm Dr. Guy, your malapropisms are showing. Or was this a humorous attempt at an intentional Freudian slip?

No, it is the reason I got into computers.  My Handwriting is atrocious and my spelling worse.  I wrote my own Word Processor back in 1980. on a Honeywell Mainframe.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Deference
Join Date 04/2004
0
Reply #19 January 19, 2005 11:18:42 AM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums
btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose

What a nuanced posit, sounds like a flip - flop!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #20 January 19, 2005 7:14:32 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

The control of a woman's body should not be used as a political or legal football.

That is not a political football.  Life, that is the hot potatoe.  If you beleive in the concept of life at conception, then it is murder.  If you do not beleive that a parasite has any rights until they breath on their own, then it is just a procedure.

It is not about her body.  it is about the definition of the beginning of life.  IN a nutshell.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #21 January 19, 2005 7:25:28 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose

What a nuanced posit, sounds like a flip - flop!

No, just a person trying to find a middle ground.  I wish I could be as noble, but my  conscience wont let me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
DNCdude
Join Date 11/2004
0
Reply #22 January 20, 2005 7:38:09 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums
I'm sorry, but last time I checked McCorvey doesn't represent all females, why should she think that she has the right to remove the choice of abortion from all females, doesn't make sense...
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #23 January 20, 2005 8:02:23 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Reply #22 By: DNCdude - 1/20/2005 7:38:09 PM
I'm sorry, but last time I checked McCorvey doesn't represent all females, why should she think that she has the right to remove the choice of abortion from all females, doesn't make sense...


Get a grip dude! Roe V Wade was HER court case. And since it was HERS then she can contest if she so chooses. Doesn 't mean it's going to go the way she wants though.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
trina_p
Join Date 04/2004
+1
Reply #24 January 20, 2005 8:10:07 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'm confused - I thought the person behind the orignal Roe vs Wade was Ellen Russell, who didn't want to have another baby and give it up for adoption so she tried to have an abortion was stopped ended up having the baby which was adopted out and turned like 5 or 10 before the court proceedings even wrapped up.
I watched a documentary called Roe vs Wade in Introduction to Family and Community (Australian equivelent of health class I guess) I remember because she was played by Holly Hunter.

McCorvey came out against abortion years ago, but her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn.

I'm really confused about this statement was she originally against abortion or for it? And what does she mean about increased chances of viability? Is she talking about women who choose to abort for health reasons? I just don't understand what the viability has to do with it - If we agree it's a womans right to choose then it's her choice.

If we agree that it's a "baby" that's viable then isn't it murder?

I just don't get what this article is stating
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
drmiler
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #25 January 20, 2005 8:15:39 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply #24 By: trina_p - 1/20/2005 8:10:07 PM
I'm confused - I thought the person behind the orignal Roe vs Wade was Ellen Russell, who didn't want to have another baby and give it up for adoption so she tried to have an abortion was stopped ended up having the baby which was adopted out and turned like 5 or 10 before the court proceedings even wrapped up.


Then let me unconfuse you

Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
2 Pages1 2 
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Stardock Entertainment

Press | Support
Copyright © 2025 Stardock Entertainment. The Political Machine is a trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved.