Roe seeks to overturn Roe
Roe doesn't want Roe
That pretty much sums up this article. I will admit this is a very intesting way of striking at the abortion decision that I have never heard anyone ponder. I guess it is very rare for the original party to seek to have their own lawsuit overturned.
What do you think the chances are for her motion?
In an interesting bit of pondering and being a picky-butt about things, I have to point out that Roe did not legalize abortion. It nationalized abortion. However in seeking to overturn her own case McCorvey could bring about making abortion illegal instead of just an issue that goes back to the states. That to me, would be the profoundly ironic. This is because one of the arguments she is using is medical science about fetal developement. She is seeking person-status for fetuses which would be much more than just overturning Roe.
We live in interesting times.
Nick
Quote:
On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court's historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey (search) announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years.
On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court's historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey (search) announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years.
That pretty much sums up this article. I will admit this is a very intesting way of striking at the abortion decision that I have never heard anyone ponder. I guess it is very rare for the original party to seek to have their own lawsuit overturned.
What do you think the chances are for her motion?
In an interesting bit of pondering and being a picky-butt about things, I have to point out that Roe did not legalize abortion. It nationalized abortion. However in seeking to overturn her own case McCorvey could bring about making abortion illegal instead of just an issue that goes back to the states. That to me, would be the profoundly ironic. This is because one of the arguments she is using is medical science about fetal developement. She is seeking person-status for fetuses which would be much more than just overturning Roe.
Quote:
? There is more evidence being submitted proving the harmful effects of abortions on women now that should outweigh McCorvey's single, original testimony 30 years ago arguing for abortion.
? The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.
? Various "Baby Moses" laws in 40 states say the states will take care of a child if the mother cannot, providing an alternative to abortion.
? There is more evidence being submitted proving the harmful effects of abortions on women now that should outweigh McCorvey's single, original testimony 30 years ago arguing for abortion.
? The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.
? Various "Baby Moses" laws in 40 states say the states will take care of a child if the mother cannot, providing an alternative to abortion.
We live in interesting times.
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
We live in interesting times.
There is a Chinese curse that says "may you live in interesting times."
that is all.
Originally posted by billybobsky
? The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.
I think someone forgot to tell all the scientists.
Originally posted by billybobsky
There is a Chinese curse that says "may you live in interesting times."
that is all.
Some quote the same lines and say it is a Jewish Blessing..I wonder what its origins really are ?
As per abortions..
Hmmm..
35 Million aborted children in America alone since 1973..
Ten times more (roughly ) than all americans killed in all the wars she has fought since her beginning..
Sounds more like government sanctioned genocide of the innocent.
interesting to see that she's big enough to be willing to overturn her own lawsuit if she thinks it's wrong.
Either way a new case needs to come up to present these new issues. The Court has said they are not interested in revisiting this issue so ... status quo for now.
Originally posted by Scott
Her feelings about it now are irrelevant to the courts decision back then. Unless she can cite errors in the testimony there's no reason to revisit the first ruling.
Really?
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Seems to me she is right on.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Really?
Seems to me she is right on.
Nick
Yes.
She may be right on but the case was put before the court way back when and the decision was made. End of story. No reason to reopen the case.
A NEW case needs to come up for the court to look at this issue again.
face it, roe v. wade is pretty entrenched.
interestingly, he would of been the prosecutor in the oswald case.
Originally posted by aquafire
Sounds more like government sanctioned genocide of the innocent.
I find this statement amusing to no end.
I'm not a legal scholar...people talk about "overturning" Roe v. Wade, but it was decided by the Supreme Court. To whom can you appeal? Can the same court re-hear a case and decide differently, or must all appeals be directed toward a higher court?
-- ShadyG
Originally posted by Scott
Yes.
She may be right on but the case was put before the court way back when and the decision was made. End of story. No reason to reopen the case.
A NEW case needs to come up for the court to look at this issue again.
If you read Norma McCorvey's take on reveals quite a bit. She can't cite any errors in the testimony because she was never asked for any. She was a homeless white woman, who signed an affidavit and learned about the decision in the newspapers. She herself never had an abortion.
Testimony
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
I find this statement amusing to no end.
You find Government sanctioned genocide of the innocent amusing.
At least your consistent,( re enviromental issues ) even if lacking any real apparent understanding of how abortion has an ongoing impact on our society's values & long term future.\
Originally posted by trumptman
If you read Norma McCorvey's take on reveals quite a bit.
A strict reading of her new affifavit would find that she perjurs herself from one section to the next. She clearly knew what an abortion was when she sought one to end her pergnancy, though she subsequently claimed she had no idea what it was - one basis of her complaint. The bit about John Wayne is pure, disgusting theater. A more generous reading would find that she got religion that changed her perception of what a fetus is. Interestingly, she complains that her lawyers should have given her religion in 1970. [shakes head] This is sad. Sad that she was likely manpiulated by lawyers in 1970, and sadder that she's being manipulated by lawyers and religious nuts today. Nothing like being convinced you're responsible for 35 million murders.