Roe V Wade?

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.

internet

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

yes people can change... point taken

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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"

'anyone can have a pang of conscious'
We live in hope, Dr. Guy!
(I think the word you were grappling for was 'conscience'.)

'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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.