ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion rights , anti-abortion movement , Norma McCorvey , Roe v. Wade , supreme court decisions

Reply
Old 21st May 2020, 09:27 AM   #1
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,405
Roe v. Wade: Recanting of the reversal

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.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:30 AM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,597
Not disputing the claim, but the actual source is an FX documentary.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:48 AM   #3
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,207
I'm surprised they managed to keep a lid on that for the 3 years that has passed since the interview.

As for who comes off worse, a pox on both their houses as far as I'm concerned. Even if one the priests who paid her, states that he now regrets doing so: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...tion-1.5576924
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:49 AM   #4
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,129
As usual the commandment against bearing false witness turns out to be completely optional.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:50 AM   #5
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,743
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
I'm surprised they managed to keep a lid on that for the 3 years that has passed since the interview.

As for who comes off worse, a pox on both their houses as far as I'm concerned. Even if one the priests who paid her, states that he now regrets doing so: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...tion-1.5576924
I wonder if he's going to hell for paying someone to bear false witness?

Should be an interesting conversation with god.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:50 AM   #6
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,129
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I wonder if he's going to hell for paying someone to bear false witness?
Beat you to it by a few seconds.

As usual, I'm just barely better than you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:57 AM   #7
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,359
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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.)
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.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:09 AM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:14 AM   #9
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,813
*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.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:18 AM   #10
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,958
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by some guy on facebook
Having only seen the Trailer of the “AKA Jane Roe” documentary, I looked up the guy who did the documentary (Nick Sweeney) ...

Last edited by carlitos; 21st May 2020 at 10:19 AM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:22 AM   #11
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,203
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
"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.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:24 AM   #12
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not disputing the claim, but the actual source is an FX documentary.
The actual source is McCorvey on camera saying it and an evangelical minister involved with the payoff scheme corroborating it.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:26 AM   #13
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:28 AM   #14
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
Your source is a Facebook post. Everyone is laughing at you.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:28 AM   #15
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,873
The fact that she so easily changed her position for money proves that the abortion movement is void of ethics [/conservative talking point]
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:31 AM   #16
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:34 AM   #17
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
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.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:41 AM   #18
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,743
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Beat you to it by a few seconds.

As usual, I'm just barely better than you.


Goddamnit!

I demand a recount!

EDIT: Dude, that's a low bar!
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 21st May 2020 at 10:44 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:42 AM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And you vetted him as a reliable source how exactly?
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:42 AM   #20
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,958
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.


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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:44 AM   #21
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,210
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:46 AM   #22
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
How do you vet someone for their own personal feelings? That the paying of $450,000 took place seems to be totally uncontested.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:46 AM   #23
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
Now you've done it. You've committed heresy, prepare for excommunication.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:47 AM   #24
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,813
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Now you've done it. You've committed heresy, prepare for excommunication.
There it is. Get up on that cross Zigg! Wear that hair shirt!
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:51 AM   #25
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
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.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:51 AM   #26
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:52 AM   #27
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,957
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
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 by Giordano; 21st May 2020 at 10:55 AM.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:52 AM   #28
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How do you vet someone for their own personal feelings? That the paying of $450,000 took place seems to be totally uncontested.
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:56 AM   #29
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,958
Yay, a red herring! Who's got bingo?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:59 AM   #30
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,957
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
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?
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:00 AM   #31
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Have you vetted McCorvey? Are you demanding others do so? No, of course not. Why question what you want to believe?
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?

Quote:
He's a primary source. Quoting from him is no different than quoting from McCorvey.
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 by johnny karate; 21st May 2020 at 11:06 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:02 AM   #32
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,957
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Yay, a red herring! Who's got bingo?
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.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:04 AM   #33
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,957
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
This in particular. An absolutely perfect example of who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:05 AM   #34
Ron Obvious
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, and I say that as a pro-choice individual.
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.
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:05 AM   #35
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,129
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
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.
And the truth is, often we don't really know why we do what we do.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:07 AM   #36
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,957
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
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.
I thought it might be worth pointing that out again.
Giordano is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:19 AM   #37
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,813
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.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:30 AM   #38
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,359
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:31 AM   #39
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,184
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That’s a remarkably stupid thing to say.
You're right. I mixed up McCorvey's name with Schenck. Schenck is who I meant. That was a stupid mistake.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:35 AM   #40
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
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.
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?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.