Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

"Roe" (Norma) and her "change"

User Profile
Am I the only one highly annoyed that the woman who took abortion allll the way to teh supreme court is now staunchly pro-life and popping up protesting everywhere? She recently went to Notre Dame to protest Obama's very presence there because he is pro-choice.

Does this make any sense? Does this reflect negatively on the pro-choice side that the "pioneer" is now a pro-lifer or reflect negatively on the pro-life side that their "pioneer" has had several abortions herself?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied May 18th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
She's a hypocrite. Now that SHE'S out of hot water she thinks other women should be stuck boiling in it. It's the "My exception is exceptional" mentality that many women "converts" express when they make a bad choice for themselves.

I think it's grasping at straws when prolifers use women like this as an example and say: "See? SEE?! She had an abortion and she regrets it now, so abortion is bad for ALL women!"

Er...no. It doesn't mean abortion is bad for ANY women, it only means that the woman in question lacked the courage of her convictions and made a bad decision for her particular situation. The rest of us don't need to be infantilized because some women regret their own choices. I don't need a babysitter, especially not one that couldn't make up her own mind.

Tough crap, she made her choice and we have the right to do the same. I'm amazed that anyone on either side takes this weak-minded fool seriously.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
I think pro-lifers take her seriously and her *trump* card is that the abortion she fought to get, the subject of Roe v. Wade was BORN and exists as an adult now. She didn't choose to have that baby, the choice was forced on her in a way by both sides. Pro-lifers forced it because it wasn't allowed in her state, pro-choicers because getting an abortion would mean she loses constitutional standing to appeal any decision to the contrary and possibly take it to the supreme court. She is supreme example of bad influences all around. It wasn't until AFTER she had the baby and it danwed on her that the popularity of this case would mean the child she had would KNOW she wanted an abortion did she change sides. She's a hypocrite a big one and I think everyone involved, the people who didn't want her to have the abortion and now embrace her to their side and those who didn't want her to have the abortion so that she could be the poster girl for the right to an elective abortion are all hypocrites.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Maybe she should jump off a bridge 50% she'll live and 50% she'll with her own free will that is.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Now that she's served her purpose huh?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Phenicks wrote:
Now that she's served her purpose huh?


No if shes prolife she won't jump unfortunately.....
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Well I dont wish her death but I do hope she realizes that she's no help to either side. Her credibility is shot, she's been a liar and an opportunist form the jump and one good time, both sides got a chance to get something they wanted, pro-lifers saved her baby, pro-choicers got abortions rights from the supreme court.

After this realization maybe she'll hush up and (I read deeper turns out she DID give her daughter up for adoption) find a way to apologize to her daughter. I'm betting this is what this - her very vocal *pro-life* stance is all about.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Quick Reply