Roe v. Wade: Recanting of the reversal

Segnosaur

Penultimate Amazing
Segnosaur
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
21,538
Location
Canada, eh?
Haven't seen anything about this, but I thought it might be of some interest.

Remember Roe v. Wade? (The supreme court case that struck down various abortion laws.) The woman behind it caused a little controversy when she later came out on the Anti-Abortion side. But, there might be a bit more to the story.

From: BBC
Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe in the US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade, shocked the country in 1995 when she came out against abortion. But in new footage, McCorvey alleges she was paid to switch sides....In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals. (The article doesn't go into details about why she did so, other than 'she was paid', if she had financial problems, etc.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Haven't seen anything about this, but I thought it might be of some interest.

Remember Roe v. Wade? (The supreme court case that struck down various abortion laws.) The woman behind it caused a little controversy when she later came out on the Anti-Abortion side. But, there might be a bit more to the story.

From: BBC
Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe in the US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade, shocked the country in 1995 when she came out against abortion. But in new footage, McCorvey alleges she was paid to switch sides....In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals. (The article doesn't go into details about why she did so, other than 'she was paid', if she had financial problems, etc.)
Click to expand...

In my observations, questions of "Why did you....." rarely have simple, concise, answers. Human motivations are complex, and saying someone, including yourself, did something because "X" rarely gives the whole story. There are usually a lot of factors, and difficult decisions.

Here's what I know of the story. Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe became pregnant, wanted an abortion, but it was against the law. She sued, and won. However, needless to say, Supreme Court cases take longer than pregnancies. The baby was born, and given up for adoption.

At some point, people, I don't remember who, went looking for the baby, and found her. I don't know how. Whoever it was and however they knew, they found Norma McCorvey's biological daughter, who was then in her early 20s. I remember reading the story of how the people who had been looking for her met the young woman, with the adoptive parents, at a lunchtime meeting. The young woman knew she had been adopted, but knew nothing of her birth mother. She had been raised by evangelicals, and was staunchly pro-life. The family knew that the man had information about the birth mother and, given the way he was acting, wondered if it might be someone famous. At that meeting, he revealed the story, and the young woman's identity as the baby at the center of the Roe v. Wade case.

It was an emotional time for all involved, as these things frequently are when there are both adoptive and biological parents involved, and throw in some deeply held religious beliefs, and, just for good measure, lots of public attention and what might be the single most contentious issue of our lifetimes, and which touches on at least one person's very existence.

McCorvey and her biological daughter met. McCorvey denounced abortion and accepted Jesus. Evangelicals did indeed use them for promotion of their cause. Apparently, cash changed hands.

So exactly "why" did McCorvey do what she did? I don't think there's a simple answer.
 
Segnosaur said:
Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals.
Click to expand...

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.
 
*Shrugs* Outside of a minor historical bit of trivia this hardly really matters all this much.

Oh I'm sure the two sides will be fighting over who gets the points deducted for this for a while, but beyond that what's to discuss? Jane Doe / Norma McCovey was, let us be honest here, a symbolic part of the overall abortion debate, not a lynchpin or litmus test of it. Any fall, raise, or combination of from grace by anyone's definition she has undergone doesn't change anything, even within her own single set of circumstances and even less so to any other woman's.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's if you trust the documentary. Its accuracy is [URL/"https:/ /www.facebook.com/ BenhamBrothers/posts/3011834892236481"]being disputed[/URL]. And she's not around to set the record straight in either case.
Click to expand...

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.

some guy on facebook said:
Having only seen the Trailer of the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, I looked up the guy who did the documentary (Nick Sweeney) ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

"I know you have her on tape making explicit statements, but she was a compulsive liar, and you can take my word for it because I'm one of the people who paid her" isn't the most convincing of arguments.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
 
The fact that she so easily changed her position for money proves that the abortion movement is void of ethics [/conservative talking point]
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
Click to expand...

And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
 
So we have to choose between her being a liar for money, or a compulsive liar who was paid to adovcate their position? Which one of these exactly is supposed to make her more or less sympathetic?

The fact that she was paid to do this seems to be totally undisputed, it is just what she felt about it, and we have to either take her words for it or accept that she was a compulsive liar being exploited for jesus. Jesus loves bearing false witness after all it is right from the book of Trump.
 
johnny karate said:
And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
Click to expand...

Have you vetted McCorvey? Are you demanding others do so? No, of course not. Why question what you want to believe?

He's a primary source. Quoting from him is no different than quoting from McCorvey.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not "some guy". It's someone who knew Norma McCorvey personally and was directly involved with her anti-abortion activism that the documentary addresses. You don't have to believe him (you don't have to believe the documentary either), but he's a first-hand source.
Click to expand...



Yes, that's why we allow hearsay at criminal trials. If someone says that someone else told them something, they are considered a "first-hand source." Great argument. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
Have you vetted McCorvey? Are you demanding others do so? No, of course not. Why question what you want to believe?

He's a primary source. Quoting from him is no different than quoting from McCorvey.
Click to expand...

How do you vet someone for their own personal feelings? That the paying of $450,000 took place seems to be totally uncontested.
 
Allen773 said:
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not sure who comes out looking worse here... The evangelicals for bribing someone into lying, or McCorvey herself for throwing herself in with the evangelicals.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
First of all, as others have pointed out, its a facebook post... and facebook isn't exactly known for its journalistic integrity.

Secondly, its a claim from some anti-abortion zealots known as the Benham Brothers. But even if they themselves didn't pay McCorvey, how exactly can they know whether other evangelicals paid her or not? Are they omniscient?

Lastly, they are evangelicals. Given current events (their support of Trump for example, a man who is about as far from 'Jebus' as a politician can get), there is very little reason to believe that they have any integrity at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
How do you vet someone for their own personal feelings? That the paying of $450,000 took place seems to be totally uncontested.
Click to expand...

Do you think Alexis Johnson (CEO of Planned Parenthood) is dishonest in her belief in abortion rights because she gets paid to promote them? She's made a lot more than $450k for her promotion of abortion rights. The existence of payments is rather insufficient to prove malign motives. That has to cut both ways, or not at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
Do you think Alexis Johnson (CEO of Planned Parenthood) is dishonest in her belief in abortion rights because she gets paid to promote them? She's made a lot more than $450k for her promotion of abortion rights. The existence of payments is rather insufficient to prove malign motives. That has to cut both ways, or not at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the dishonest part comes from the fact that the payments to “Mss Norma” were done secretly, together with her statement in the movie that she was just acting the part and saying what her employers told her to say? Perhaps?
 
Ziggurat said:
Have you vetted McCorvey? Are you demanding others do so? No, of course not. Why question what you want to believe?
Click to expand...

That’s a remarkably stupid thing to say.

McCorvey is on camera saying what she said. That’s a firsthand account.

What you’re providing is a secondhand account from a source you haven’t even established is reliable.

Does it really need to be explained to you why one is better than the other?

He's a primary source. Quoting from him is no different than quoting from McCorvey.
Click to expand...

And yet somehow it gets stupider.

How do you know that he’s a primary source?

And quoting the person who actually made the statement is not even remotely the same thing as quoting another person making a claim about what the first person really meant.

ETA: And come to think of it, he’s not a primary source. At best he’s a secondary source. There’s only one primary source for what McCorvey thinks and feels, and that’s McCorvey
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Yay, a red herring! Who's got bingo?
Click to expand...

I have nine bingo cards running from different threads. A red herring helps fill 7 of them. But I still need a “completely made up hypothetical scenario that attempts to justify an unsupported opinion” to get bingo.
 
johnny karate said:
That’s a remarkably stupid thing to say.

McCorvey is on camera saying what she said. That’s a firsthand account.

What you’re providing is a secondhand account from a source you haven’t even established is reliable.

Does it really need to be explained to you why one is better than the other?



And yet somehow it gets stupider.

How do you know that he’s a primary source?

And quoting the person who actually made the statement is not even remotely the same thing as quoting another person making a claim about what the first person really meant.
Click to expand...

This in particular. An absolutely perfect example of who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
 
Allen773 said:
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Meadmaker said:
In my observations, questions of "Why did you....." rarely have simple, concise, answers. Human motivations are complex, and saying someone, including yourself, did something because "X" rarely gives the whole story. There are usually a lot of factors, and difficult decisions.
Click to expand...

And the truth is, often we don't really know why we do what we do.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought it might be worth pointing that out again.
 
Roe V Wade was not a Supreme Court decision on one individual woman's right to have an abortion.

So this one woman, again, is not litmus test or canary in the coal mine or sacrificial lamb or any other metaphor or representative of any side of the abortion debate.
 
Ron Obvious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey was just one person, one of many, many, women who wanted an abortion who couldn't get one. Our legal system requires a genuine, flesh and blood, person to be represented in a case, so she was it, but she was just a standin for lots and lots of women of her time and for the future who wanted or would someday want to have an abortion.


What she did after the case was decided doesn't really have anything to do with how we ought to view abortion. Should abortion be legal? Is abortion a constitutional right? Those are two, separate, questions, both of which are interesting, and neither of which are influenced or informed by the fact that one woman who once sought an abortion received money to participate in anti-abortion activity, but remained conflicted about the whole issue all the way until her death.
 
Meadmaker said:
Indeed. Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey was just one person, one of many, many, women who wanted an abortion who couldn't get one. Our legal system requires a genuine, flesh and blood, person to be represented in a case, so she was it, but she was just a standin for lots and lots of women of her time and for the future who wanted or would someday want to have an abortion.


What she did after the case was decided doesn't really have anything to do with how we ought to view abortion. Should abortion be legal? Is abortion a constitutional right? Those are two, separate, questions, both of which are interesting, and neither of which are influenced or informed by the fact that one woman who once sought an abortion received money to participate in anti-abortion activity, but remained conflicted about the whole issue all the way until her death.
Click to expand...

But it makes a wonderful narrative for those peddling lies about the percentage of women who regret having abortions. Oddly they never bring up the percentage of women who regret not having and abortion for some reason.

So this undermines more of their propaganda, while of course making no meaningful contribution on the subject. But lying is a fundamental part of the anti abortion movement do why should they give up their preferred weapon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom