« Government waste | Main | As I Mature ... »
June 20, 2003
Roe (now) vs Roe (then)
The Sydney Morning Herald had a story yesterday entitled "Roe seeks to kill Wade" which could, perhaps, have been a little more selective. For those who have no idea (or have never taken sides) in the abortion debate, "Roe vs Wade" was the key court case in the US which ultimately made abortion legal. The story (as reported) is in the extended entry section because the SMH will make it inaccessible after 24 hours (or thereabouts).
Other (probably saner) discussion can be found at "Jaboobie and Two Hard Boiled Eggs".
The gist of the story is that Roe (actually Norma McCorvey) who in 1970 tried to (legally) have an abortion in Dallas. The decision made by the Supreme Court in 1973 changed the political landscape completely (bit late for Roe who gave her child up for adoption). Now Roe wants the court to invalidate that decision and her lawyer will argue that life begins at conception (something which has always been taught by the Catholic Church).
Obviously there will be an outcry and lots of protest that Roe could "turn her back" on the Abortion Rights (or Wrongs) movement. These same protestors will probably complain about people adopting "foreign" babies (because there are no local ones available for adoption) and the inhumane death penalty for convicted criminals.
Taking those one at a time, think about the fact that some couples can't have children for various reasons but would still make swell parents. Once upon a time they would have adopted children but there are so few available that it has become and almost impossible task. Unless you go overseas.... The only alternative is the "test tube" option which is heavily underwritten by the government. The end result appears to be thousands and thousands of fertilized ova which get discarded and maybe a few (very expensive) children.
Now think about the death row argument. Most people feel that the death penalty should be either phased out or much less readily applied. Personally I can see both sides and there are cases where I think it would be acceptable to condemn a homicidal manic to death BUT and this is a really big BUT (bigger than my BUTT which is not inconsiderable) the same people appear to be happy to condemn unborn children to death. These are not "appendages" to a woman, these are not "scraps" or "tissue" to be surgically removed. They are children and we kill them. We kill them without thinking. We kill them without remorse. In the process part of us dies too and I think that is the point that Roe is now trying to make.
P.S. I don't want to get into a heated argument about rape cases and population growth. You go down that path and you are arguing about the symptoms not the problem. In many cases there are alternatives to getting pregnant in the first place (like restraint and self-control and self-respect).
Quoted from the SMH:
Roe seeks to kill Wade
By Bill Miller in Dallas June 19 2003
The woman whose pseudonym became linked with the landmark case that legalised abortion in the United States more than 30 years ago has asked a court to overturn her case, Roe v Wade.
Norma McCorvey, 56, has filed a motion aimed at overturning the 1973 lawsuit. The motion asks a federal judge to reopen her case, and subsequently end it.
"I feel like the weight of the world has been lifted from my shoulders," Ms McCorvey said at a news conference in Dallas on Tuesday.
"You know that saying 'You've come a long way baby'? Well, we're getting our babies back."
She was surrounded by about 50 women who have had abortions but now regret doing so.
A federal district judge will take up the issue first. Ms McCorvey's lawyers hope the judges will agree with their contention that evidence shows that women are harmed by abortions and will decide to overturn the 1973 ruling. If that happens, an appeal will probably follow, and the case could return to the US Supreme Court.
The nation's debate over abortion rights began in 1970 when Ms McCorvey, then 25, tried to end her pregnancy in Dallas. Her lawyers filed a lawsuit against the Dallas County district attorney, Henry Wade, challenging Texas's abortion laws. The case made it to the US Supreme Court in 1973, when justices ruled that Ms McCorvey and other women had the right to "be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child".
The decision came too late for Ms McCorvey to have an abortion. She eventually gave the child up for adoption, but in the meantime agreed to join the lawsuit that would carry her pseudonym, "Jane Roe".
In subsequent years, however, Ms McCorvey said that she felt responsible for the deaths of millions of foetuses after abortion on demand was legalised by the Roe v Wade ruling.
Ms McCorvey eventually turned to religion and became one of the nation's most vocal anti-abortion activists.
In her motion, Ms McCorvey says the ruling by the 1973 ruling to invalidate the abortion law in Texas is no longer "fair or just" because of new evidence supporting the belief that abortion destroys a woman's physical and mental health.
Allan Parker, the lawyer representing Ms McCorvey, said his legal team would also argue that life begins at conception, using "an explosion of scientific evidence on human life".
Kae McLaughlin, of the Texas Abortion Rights Action League in Austin, called Ms McCorvey's motion "ludicrous" and "a sad publicity stunt".
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Knight Ridder
Posted by Ozguru at June 20, 2003 12:06 AM
Comments
Posted by: jivha at June 20, 2003 12:06 AM
