roe vs wade

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-17 06:18pm

'Roe' Seeks to Overturn Abortion Law
18 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

DALLAS (Reuters) - The woman once known as "Jane Roe" whose case led to the legalization of abortion in the United States 30 years ago filed a new court challenge on Tuesday in a bid to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision.

Reuters Photo

Norma McCorvey, who went by the name Jane Roe in the landmark Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) ruling but later joined the anti-abortion movement, filed a motion in Dallas federal court claiming changes in the law and advances in medicine had rendered the court's original decision unjust.

At a Dallas rally, she told supporters she regretted her part in the original lawsuit.

"I want to thank all the wonderful women that are standing here. I'm so sorry that I filed that affidavit," McCorvey said.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," she said in a separate statement.

Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) president Gloria Feldt said the case was not viewed as a threat to abortion rights.

"We don't expect the court to take it seriously. And the reason is because it was a good decision," she told Reuters. "Roe v. Wade enabled women to participate in the social, financial and political life of this country."

The move is the latest challenge to U.S. abortion rights and comes after the House of Representatives and the Senate each approved a ban on a procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion. Minor differences in the two versions remain to be worked out before the legislation goes to the White House.

The ban, supported by President Bush (news - web sites), would be the first time a specific abortion procedure has been criminalized since the 1973 Supreme Court decision.

In Tuesday's motion, written by a Texas-based conservative legal group called the Justice Foundation, McCorvey said Roe v. Wade was decided on false assumptions and that no meaningful trial was held to determine the facts.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 06:30pm

Yeah, she's a born-again, apparently.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-17 06:31pm

It'll be interesting to see how all this goes...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 06:42pm

I assume it will amount to nothing.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-17 06:47pm

rr is my obsession. I must post their views:

"This is such wonderful news, I saw her make her statement this morning, she also mention God in her speech.

It's so wonderful, when people come to God!!!!!

She also said "We are going to get our children back".

Praise God, that she has opened her eyes!! "

"Well, this is such a wonderful thing to see....God Bless this dear soul for seeing the light on multiple fronts.

I would love to see this overturned...it would be a great thing for this country and a great slap in the face to the feminists....and I heard on Rush Limbaugh today that the latest census shows that more and more woman are leaving the workforce and staying at home....another slap to feminist theories. I realize many, many folks have to work but I appreciate those who can do with one income are willing to do so because they realize just how essential it is to be there for the kids.

Let's pray that this gets overturned no matter how upset the interest groups get....the heck with them."

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-17 07:29pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:rr is my obsession. I must post their views...

Do you post there?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:33pm

The notion of people who actually LOOK FORWARD to a prophesied time of horrifyingly destructive warfare in which BILLIONS DIE is extremely disturbing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:36pm

Regarding the original subject, I actually think Roe vs Wade is flawed too, but for different reasons. Survival outside the mother's body is not the issue; "I think therefore I am" is the issue. Once the baby starts exhibiting signs of higher brain function, he or she acquires human rights as far as I'm concerned. That's why I consider late-term abortions to be murder. The pro-abortion extremists who think that a baby is nothing but a sack of flesh until the moment it reaches atmosphere are painting themselves into an ethical corner.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-17 07:41pm

They would`nt need abortion if they`d use contraceptive,a foetus is not like a tumor dammit.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 07:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:Regarding the original subject, I actually think Roe vs Wade is flawed too, but for different reasons. Survival outside the mother's body is not the issue; "I think therefore I am" is the issue. Once the baby starts exhibiting signs of higher brain function, he or she acquires human rights as far as I'm concerned. That's why I consider late-term abortions to be murder. The pro-abortion extremists who think that a baby is nothing but a sack of flesh until the moment it reaches atmosphere are painting themselves into an ethical corner.

But Roe only removed restrictions on first trimester abortions, IIRC. Unless by "late term" you mean "late in the first trimester."

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 07:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:The notion of people who actually LOOK FORWARD to a prophesied time of horrifyingly destructive warfare in which BILLIONS DIE is extremely disturbing.

Look forward? Hell, they do more than that, they're actively trying to bring it about.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 08:00pm

Durran Korr wrote:But Roe only removed restrictions on first trimester abortions, IIRC. Unless by "late term" you mean "late in the first trimester."

Perhaps my knowledge of American law is lacking, then. I was under the impression that Roe allowed abortions in all cases where the fetus was not yet mature enough to survive independently of the mother's body.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 08:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:But Roe only removed restrictions on first trimester abortions, IIRC. Unless by "late term" you mean "late in the first trimester."
Perhaps my knowledge of American law is lacking, then. I was under the impression that Roe allowed abortions in all cases where the fetus was not yet mature enough to survive independently of the mother's body.

Not as far as I'm aware. Only recent court decisions have made partial-birth abortions, which are second trimester, legal, I think. Though Congress recently voted on a ban of the procedure.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-06-17 08:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps my knowledge of American law is lacking, then. I was under the impression that Roe allowed abortions in all cases where the fetus was not yet mature enough to survive independently of the mother's body.

I'm quite sure the decision guaranteed freedom to get an abortion during the first and second trimester. The third would be up to congress.

It is three trimesters right, or is my understanding of pregancy flawed?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 08:42pm

Three trimesters is correct.

OK, I fudged my facts a bit. Roe did allow for second trimester abortions, but not complete freedom in that area; states are free to regulate/control them to some degree.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-17 08:48pm

jegs2 wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:rr is my obsession. I must post their views...
Do you post there?

nah. Im a member, but read only.

I see some of your posts tho.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-17 09:18pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:nah. Im a member, but read only.

I see some of your posts tho.

Hmm, I'm in a debate over Paul right now. One of them questioned my faith. Asked them to quote John 3:16 -18, then I'd provide them the answer they sought...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-17 09:20pm

I was just approved. I'll back you up, jegs, just provide a (broken) link.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-17 09:20pm

http://www .rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=987601#post987601

don't direct link from here to the mother of all fundie boards.~Olrik

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 10:10pm

jegs2 wrote:Hmm, I'm in a debate over Paul right now. One of them questioned my faith. Asked them to quote John 3:16 -18, then I'd provide them the answer they sought...

Is it normal for them to question someone's faith if he declares himself as a Christian but does not precisely echo their doctrines?

That's one of the reasons it's actually easier (in some ways) to debate such people when one is an atheist. I've encountered this tactic myself, and of course, it is completely ineffective in my case

Post by **Steve** » 2003-06-17 10:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
jegs2 wrote:Hmm, I'm in a debate over Paul right now. One of them questioned my faith. Asked them to quote John 3:16 -18, then I'd provide them the answer they sought...
Is it normal for them to question someone's faith if he declares himself as a Christian but does not precisely echo their doctrines?

That's one of the reasons it's actually easier (in some ways) to debate such people when one is an atheist. I've encountered this tactic myself, and of course, it is completely ineffective in my case

It also helps if one has moved from active Christianity to passive Christianity bordering on Deism. It gives the tactical advantage of knowing how Christians think, particularly for me, considering I was once quite devout (in my extreme youth and pre-teen years) and still have devout family members whom I have to deal with from time to time.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-17 10:50pm

Steve wrote: It also helps if one has moved from active Christianity to passive Christianity bordering on Deism. It gives the tactical advantage of knowing how Christians think, particularly for me, considering I was once quite devout (in my extreme youth and pre-teen years) and still have devout family members whom I have to deal with from time to time.

I need to get you to read The Philosophy of History next, my pupil. We'll finish putting God into an appropriately rational corner, oh yess..

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-17 10:52pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Not as far as I'm aware. Only recent court decisions have made partial-birth abortions, which are second trimester, legal, I think. Though Congress recently voted on a ban of the procedure.

I think it was something along the lines of "In favour of the mother in the first trimester, decided by the states in the second trimester, and in the balance of the fetus in the third trimester," which was sufficiently ambiguous as to be totally worthless, though at least indicated that the court wasn't buying into either extremist side--but unfortunately has given them ammo for their arguments.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-17 11:02pm

I need to get you to read The Philosophy of History next, my pupil. We'll finish putting God into an appropriately rational corner, oh yess..

-clubs the Duchess with The Art of War In the Western World-

Stay away from the innocent! Back!

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-17 11:04pm

Is it normal for them to question someone's faith if he declares himself as a Christian but does not precisely echo their doctrines?

Evidently. Now I'm 'anti-Christian', which is absurdly untrue.