Woman in Roe v Wade Said She was Paid to Become Pro Life
The woman who wanted an abortion and became a celebrity in Roe v Wade, Norma McCorvey, appears in a documentary saying she became a right-to-life celeb because she was paid to switch sides. Her confession was taped shortly before she died in 2017. The documentary will be seen world wide soon. She said anti abortion operatives paid her and she said what they told her to say.
The documentary will not settle forever the question of what Norma McCorvey thought about her abortion. It will, however, stop right to life political operatives, including some who have commented here, from claiming her remorse is common among women who have abortions. They also will not be able to claim she went forward with her case believing abortion was wrong and thus made Roe v Wade a bogus court decision.
Several years ago her attorney, Sarah Weddington, spoke in Fargo and about the experience changing the entire course of a woman's right to an abortion. As I recall someone during the Q and A asked Weddington about McCorvey's change of views about abortion which at that time was against abortion. She said McCorvey had the right to any view abortion in any way she wished.
The link has several quotes from someone writing a book about McCorvey. He claims both sides paid her at one time or another. It is true she was working at an women's clinic when she was offered money to speak at a pro life rally. After that it appears she made a living working for Operation Rescue, an anti abortion group.
At the time McCorvey became "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade she had two children and could not manage a third. She needed an abortion. What her religious views about abortion were then or what they were later are not important.
It's simply a fact now as it was then that one fertilized cell is not a human being.
Dr. Alveda King and Fr. Frank Pavone have both refuted the report / documentary. Both were good friends with Norma "Roe" McCorvey.
ReplyDeleteMcCorvey also became a Roman Catholic after her abortion. Wait, she never had the abortion. She ended up giving birth to her 3rd child. But Jon said, "At the time McCorvey became "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade she had two children and could not manage a third. She needed an abortion." Since she had her 3rd child, she apparently did not "need" an abortion. She obviously managed a third child.
Putting all the B.S. about what people claim Norma said or didn't say, we don't know if some pro-life people gave her money or things and their motivation for doing so. Likewise, we don't know if Planned Parenthood, NOW, the ACLU, the Democrat Party or someone else paid Norma to make her "deathbed" confession.
Norma was arrested for her involvement in the pro-life movement. She gave up her lesbian relationship when she became a Christian. She never had an abortion She managed after she gave birth. She had trouble telling the truth. In the Roe v. Wade case, she lied about being raped.
Speaking of lies, "The documentary will not settle forever the question of what Norma McCorvey thought about her abortion." I seem to recall someone with initials JL telling that one. Can anyone help me find that person?
Matt--Thanks for your comment. It is true McCorvey gave birth and the baby was adopted by someone else. The basic outcome of the entire saga is that anti abortion schemers thought they had a giant propaganda coup and it has backfired. The same thing happened with "selling baby parts" and the "heartbeat."
DeleteAnti abortion would do better if it would stop trying to score the bogus propaganda points and simply tell the truth, that they themselves hold a narrow religious view about abortion and others may hold views different from theirs.
The New York Times had a good review of the movie and McCorvey.
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/opinion/roe-v-wade-mccorvey-documentary.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=OpEd%20Columnists
Define "good".
DeleteNo backfire as the truth is a casaulty of made-up minds.
Matt "Define 'good.'"
DeleteGood in that it explained how Roe v Wade and McCorvey came to be as we find them today. Attorneys were searching for a woman who had needed an abortion. The only candidates were poor women because others had enough money to travel to other states and obtain the abortions they needed. I knew women in Fargo who did just that. I suppose there were poor women with husbands who would lose their jobs by going to court over abortion. Only a woman who was both poor and without family would be willing to go forward--she had nothing to lose because she had nothing.
And it explained the person of McCorvey that made sense--although we can only speculate on what she thought and why she did the things she did. The Times article said she seemed a person who needed attention as well as money. With her sad childhood one can understand that. When anti abortion people offered her more of both than choice people that's where she went. When anti abortion people gave up on her she reverted to where had she started.
"others may hold different views..." no s...t Sherlock. but apparently the views of those who hold a "narrow" religious view are ruled out tout court. anybody have concerns about the coherency of the reasoning involved here?
ReplyDeleteUnknown "but apparently the views of those who hold 'narrow' religious views are ruled out.."
ReplyDeleteThose who want abortion rights do not go to court and force narrow religious people to have abortions. The narrow religious people try to force women who don't agree with them to carry pregnancies to birth. Choice people are tolerant, religious people are not.
yup, I have heard all about those tolerant pro-choice folks and the things that they routinely say about prolife people. you have said quite a few of these things yourself. the idea seems to be: drive the prolife view of abortion right out of the public square. some tolerance that! that aside, your "logic" follows for someone who views abortion as a merely utilitarian act, a mere matter of pain avoidance, a decision justified by stressful personal circumstances (forget the eugenic, population control, anti-Christian dimensions of the business). BTW, I never fail to wonder about the shear vehemence, the rabid mind set of so many of your pro-abortion friends: it is a fanaticism that goes far beyond any reasonable standard or limit.
DeleteUnknown--"yup, I have heard all about..."
DeleteLet's run through it once more so there is no misunderstanding. Choice people are not taking away any existing rights from anti abortion people. Anti abortion people will not be forced to have abortions. But, right now everyone has the right to get an abortion. Anti people want to take that right away.
once again: no sh...Sherlock. that's obvious. (at least for now). but beside the point at hand. what we are talking about is political/social intolerance, rhetorical bullying if you will. moreover, I have no illusions as to what "rights" you and your ilk would take away if you had the power to do so. you might even "warm" to the notion of involuntary abortion and involuntary euthanasia if you were able to do so. you obviously think that pro-life people are, among other things, stupid. that we can't read the tea leaves: that we can't see the implications of anti-life fanaticism (maybe, for openers, the attacks on pro-life care centers). as they say, buddy, wake up and smell the coffee.
DeleteUnknown "once again..notion of involuntary abortion"
DeleteThat is a hilarious post. Several times I have pointed out the dangers anti abortion zealots put our country in. When anti abortionists try to pass laws giving the government the power over abortion they are handing government both the right to ban it and to require it. It is people like myself trying to stop government from running the lives of individual citizens.
Please do no make another post just repeating previous posts. Thank you.
So Upper Midwest Catholic men a dirt poor pregnant young woman in Appalachia assisted by the local midwife chooses to risk her life and deliver. Tell us, what’s in it for you?
ReplyDeleteSo Upper Midwest Catholic men a dirt poor pregnant young woman in Appalachia chooses to risk her life, drinks several cups of Pennyroyal tea and aborts. Tell us, what’s in it for you?
“The dissatisfaction of the spiritual man is even more dangerous than that of the starveling." Ernst Junger (Eumeswil, 1977)
dear me. my tear vial Petronius. let us say a dirt poor pregnant young woman in Appalachia chooses to steal money from her employer. what to do? BTW, how much do you contribute to relieve the suffering of the poor people in Appalachia? if you are inclined to do so, there is the Christian Appalachian project (CAP). let's see what's in it for you.
DeleteUnknown--I have not published a couple of you posts. You persist on making the same error of logic over and over again so I see no point. The error you make is judgement about the moral issue of abortion--you try to hide assumptions and move directly to unwarranted conclusions. Abortion is not a moral issue unless one uses religion to define morals.
ReplyDeleteyou? an arbiter of logic? now that's a real howler. you wouldn't last a week in any good Logic 101 course. why is abortion not a moral issue? seem to me that that is a rather sweeping, unwarranted assertion, an assertion that entails a lot of moral claims regarding "rights" and personal autonomy. in fact, you thrive on unwarranted assumptions. like, as you once said, you have truth by the balls. and that nobody else's truth claims have any validity.
DeleteUnknown-- "now that's a real howler."
ReplyDeleteI expected an angry rant. It is futile to expect you would grasp the basics of debate, lay our the assumption you have made then proceed to the case you are making. Instead, you hide the assumptions, or more likely are not even aware you are making them.
I'll explain this once more, but this is the last time. If one assumes the fertilized cell is a human being then abortion is a moral issue. When one assumes it is not a human being abortion is not a moral issue. If the fetus is part of the woman's body, like an appendix, it is not a moral issue to remove it.
Here is my request, stop making arguments about moral issues when the moral issue is tied directly to a religious issue. That is, stop doing it without admitting the direct connection to religion. Thank you.
you have a very unique definition of an angry rant. you never rant: just people who oppose you do. that said, I don't know how you can contend that your views re personal autonomy and the like are not moral claims. they clearly are: guess you missed that point. perhaps, just perhaps, if look at the genealogy of your morality it has, in the broadest sense, some connection to Christianity. perish the thought. anyhow, censor or not, that's your call: frankly sir I don't give a damn one way or the other. it's just that I don't bother to waste my time writing long posts.
DeleteUnknown -- "if you look at the genealogy of your morality is has, in the broadest sense, some connection to Christianity."
ReplyDeleteSo, your ancestors and mine, before Christianity, had no moral standards. Neither do the vast majority of people on earth at this moment who are not Christian. That might be five billion people with no moral standards.
When this absurdity is pointed out to you a healthy response would be to raise the white flag and admit your position is absurd. Are you unable to do that?
good try: reductio ad absurdum. unfortunately for you, I didn't assert (or mean to assert) what you said I asserted. not even close. as to flags, I think that your banner is full of bullet holes.
DeleteUnknown -- "I didn't assert (or mean to assert) what you said I asserted."
ReplyDeleteYou said, and have said countless times here, abortion represents some moral problem. I have, in turn, explained countless times there is no moral problem with abortion unless religion is introduced, the religious view that one fertilized cell is a human being.
Now you are saying, as I understand it, that abortion has no moral problem. That is, when I claim you said there is a moral problem you are now saying I misunderstood or misquoted you.
So, either you think there is a moral problem, this has to be based on religion and you need to acknowledge this, or you do not think there is a moral problem with abortion.
Unknown--P.S. Your reference to the immorality of abortion was in a post you submitted and I did not publish. The next time you are tempted to write commentary on morality it might be wise to push away the temptation. The same goes for a temptation to write about the fetus as a human being. It just isn't.
ReplyDelete