February 20, 2017

"Her early life had been a Dickensian nightmare. By her own account, she was the unwanted child of a broken home..."

"... a ninth-grade dropout who was raped repeatedly by a relative, and a homeless runaway and thief consigned to reform school. She was married at 16, divorced and left pregnant three times by different men. She had bouts of suicidal depression, she said. Ms. McCorvey gave up her children at birth and was a cleaning woman, waitress and carnival worker. Bisexual but primarily lesbian, she sought refuge from poverty and dead-end jobs in alcohol and drugs. She was 22 and pregnant when she joined the abortion rights struggle, claiming later that she had not really understood what it was all about...."

Norma McCorvey, the person who happened into the role of Jane Roe, has died at the age of 69.

77 comments:

Roy Jacobsen said...

And because of the kindness shown to her by Christian pro-lifers, and because she realized she was being used by the pro-abortion movement, she became a Christian and a pro-lifer.

Rest in peace.

SayAahh said...

A tragic life that created tragic lives for so many others.

Owen said...

R.I.P.

traditionalguy said...

The wounds done to helpless children create a lifetime full of disaster for everyone who encounter those children. But killing the children is not the answer to that problem. And funding free killing Services is not the answer either.

Laslo Spatula said...

Would going to Heaven to spend Eternity with the Souls of millions of aborted babies be more like Hell?

I am Laslo.

David said...

The Court ruled that her fetus was not a person. The strange thing is that in the minds many (perhaps most) who supported the decision over the years she was also not a person. They cared no more for her than they would for any distant stranger who was not thrust into their consciousness by a media flash.

Abortion in the United States has become a tragedy. It has deeply poisoned our politics, mainly because decisions about the issue have been removed from the political realm. It has created a callousness about human life, and probably has contributed to the increase in children who are raised without fathers. It has resulted in about 20 million African-American lives never coming into being outside of the womb, a vast series of events that might, if the dominant cultural pressures shift, someday be viewed as a kind of genocide.

Overturning Roe would fix none of this. It would undoubtedly make the political and cultural divide worse, possibly totally destructive rather than just corrosive. The best we can hope is that the Court and the Congress will allow the kind of sensible checks on exercise of abortion choice that exist in Europe. Or perhaps that will do no good either, and we are doomed to this tragedy in a culture which, unlike Europe, is not dominantly secular and likely never will be.

This poor lady bears none of the responsibility for all of this. She was used, first by men and then by movements. God rest her soul.

Karen of Texas said...

If you thought souls in heaven wallowed in the emotional hell of such human feelings as guilt, anger, unhappiness yada, then maybe, Laslo. But if you believe that the soul is purified, stripped of the worst of human failings, then heaven is filled with souls that are pure love. Where's the hell in that?

Humperdink said...

I find it strange that people are amused by heaven and hell.

Ann Althouse said...

"The Court ruled that her fetus was not a person."

NO. It absolutely did not.

Reread the case. I will give you a rewrite.

TreeJoe said...

If there was ever a more damning write-up for Abortion rights than that NYT article, I haven't read it.

"Roe" (Norma) details a life of horror, an early life of lying, a life of not understanding her options and responsibilities, and a life of constantly changing perceptions.

While I respect that this is each person's journey to take and mean no disrespect to her, her obituary in the NYT is exactly the type of mindset of someone who should not be making permanent decisions at a young age.

She chose the latter chapter of her life to try to right the wrong she felt was done in her name; but the real wrong was how pro-choice advocates so gleefully used her example as the baseline for which to build a case surrounding the fetus as personal property rather than an independent entity - and also personal property only of the woman (despite the fetus being 1/2 genetic material from the man).

TreeJoe said...

Althouse, I've never studied Abortion law. I read in the NYT article that the Roe v Wade decision allows abortion up until the fetus' life can be sustained separately from the mother. Is that accurate?

If so, it seems the pro-life side should be racing to advance science to support fetal development outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages. I think we're at about 22-24 weeks now for consistent viability; if it becomes ~12-16 weeks I wonder how many abortions would still occur.

Humperdink said...

@TreeJoe. The days of abortion being permitted only up until the baby's life can be sustained outside the womb are well behind us.

Humperdink said...

The days of sacrificing to Molech are not.

Trumpit said...

I oppose the senseless killing of life. That is why I oppose hunters and hunting. It should be outlawed. On the internet, a retired biologist in West Virginia lives with bears, and rehabilitates them to release them into the wild. He was certain that all the glorious bears that he released were killed by hunters. I blushed for humanity and the lack of any.

Humperdink said...

@Trumpit. Is this biologist related to the late Timothy Treadwell?

EDH said...

I found interesting Instapundit's take on the twisted ethics of the attorney 'representing' McCorvey: "It’s not like Sarah Weddington would have become a heroine of feminism if she’d actually helped the woman sitting across the table from her."

Years later, Ms. McCorvey expressed bitterness at what she described as her attorneys’ unwillingness to help her find what she needed — an abortion, even an illegal one.

“Sarah sat right across the table from me at Columbo’s pizza parlor, and I didn’t know until two years ago that she had had an abortion herself,” Ms. McCorvey told the New York Times in 1994. “When I told her then how desperately I needed one, she could have told me where to go for it. But she wouldn’t because she needed me to be pregnant for her case.”

“Sarah saw these cuts on my wrists, my swollen eyes from crying,” she continued, “the miserable person sitting across from her, and she knew she had a patsy. She knew I wouldn’t go outside of the realm of her and Linda. I was too scared. It was one of the most hideous times of my life.”

damikesc said...

Thought the same thing Humperdink. Nature isn't known for being nice and kind.

Martha said...

And yet Norma McCorvey herself never had an abortion. Her baby was given up for adoption and today is a 47 year old woman.

mockturtle said...

The days of sacrificing to Molech are not. [behind us]

So true, Humperdink!

Trumpit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trumpit said...

A hungry bear killed and ate Treadwell and his girlfriend. Are you suggesting that aborted fetuses be eaten by hungry people? It could work to reduce famine, but I don't think that it will catch on. It shows that you are thinking outside the womb, however.

Humperdink said...

@Trumpit You are stretching logic to the breaking point. You suggested you are against all killing, including hunting.

Have you ever wondered how deer meet their demise? For this exercise, let's exclude hunting.

#1) Hit by a car. This is not a painless death. They typically get clobbered and drag themselves into the woods and die slowly.

#2) Disease or starvation. Interestingly, this is indirect cause of death. In their failing health, they are unable to escape predators. In this areas, it's coyotes. A pack of coyotes ran down a fawn in my pasture this summer. It was not a pretty sight.

#3) Too old slow to escape. (See #2 above).

Deer do not die of old age.

JAORE said...

To the left, Ms. Roe died when she was no longer useful as a propaganda tool.

And our hostess is, of course, right. The court never ruled a fetus is not a person. They ruled the Constitution contained a section, previously written in invisible ink, that said what you do to that little person inside of you is your business because.... privacy.

JAORE said...

FWIW, I am, with great reluctance and unsettled stomach, pro-life. But I'll be damned if I understand the SCOTUS ruling on Roe.

TosaGuy said...

"I oppose the senseless killing of life. That is why I oppose hunters and hunting. It should be outlawed"

Have you seen a 200 dead deer together in deep snow who starved to death during the winter in an area that limits hunting?

Wisconsin forests are not self-regenerating today because of too much winter browse by deer wipes out juvenile trees. Wisconsin has too many deer in many parts of the state.

Venison is also organic, free-range meat that is delicious.

All animals in the wild die horrible deaths whether it is by starvation, cold, hit by a car or eaten alive (wolves will start eating before the animal is dead). None die peacefully in their sleep. A well-place gun shot is perhaps the best way for an animal to die.

Now if you want to talk to those folks who shoot animals just to shoot them and don't do a thing with it, then your point of view regarding hunting has my attention.

Gahrie said...

"The Court ruled that her fetus was not a person."

NO. It absolutely did not.


The Supreme Court did not rule that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?

JPS said...

Martha,

"And yet Norma McCorvey herself never had an abortion. Her baby was given up for adoption and today is a 47 year old woman."

If I ever knew that, I had somehow forgotten it. Thank you.

Gahrie said...

Roe was such an embarrassment (emanations from a penumbra) that the left likes to pretend it never existed, and that instead abortion has always originated in the 14th Amendment.

So now we are supposed to believe that a bunch of men in the 19th century who wrote an Amendment designed to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee the citizenship of Black people (and fix some Reconstruction problems) also intended to create a right to privacy (even though the word privacy does not appear) that includes a woman's right to have an abortion? This reasoning is just as absurd!

Now we are either forced to believe that these men intended to protect abortion, or that the words and intentions of those who wrote them do not matter, and judicial interpretation is nothing more than a party game to create justifications for the outcome you desire.

Now perhaps we see the origins of the idea that emotion is a valid part of reasoning? How else could you justify or explain twisting the words of our Constitution so cruelly?

Earnest Prole said...

The details of Norma McCorvey's life force any thinking person to regard her as a real human being and not merely a clump of cells we argue about.

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

Laslo Spatula said...
Would going to Heaven to spend Eternity with the Souls of millions of aborted babies be more like Hell?


They go to the "hall of the slain", Valhalla; one of the 540 rooms is reserved for them until they're old enough to drink. No problem.

Ann Althouse said...
"The Court ruled that her fetus was not a person."
NO. It absolutely did not.


The article's summary of the Philosopher King's pronouncements seem to say otherwise:

“The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn,” Justice Blackmun wrote, although states may acquire “at some point in time” of a pregnancy an interest in the “potential human life” that the fetus represents, to permit regulation. It is that interest, the court said, that permits states to prohibit abortion after the fetus has developed the capacity to survive.

That weaselly drivel reminds me of a little kid trying to change the rules of a game so he'll win: "A three of hearts is worth two aces on Tuesday, except between 2 and 3 pm when it's worth four potential aces."

Laslo Spatula said...

""Her early life had been a Dickensian nightmare..."

Left pregnant three times by different men: sounds Dickensian. As in too many Dickensians inside her back then.

That was a dick joke.

Which is a cock joke, but the author is not named Cockensian, so you go with what you have.

I am Laslo.

Gahrie said...

Now perhaps we see the origins of the idea that emotion is a valid part of reasoning? How else could you justify or explain twisting the words of our Constitution so cruelly?

It would also explain the belief that words have no fixed meaning, and that the intentions of the writer are meaningless, and the only thing that matters is the gestalt they create in the reader.

I may be finally beginning to grok Althouse. It really is all about the right to kill your unborn baby.

Fernandinande said...

Gahrie said...
How else could you justify or explain twisting the words of our Constitution so cruelly?


If you really think they're doing anything other than making up some highfalutin bullshit, I'd like to see some evidence supporting that opinion.

Gahrie said...

If you really think they're doing anything other than making up some highfalutin bullshit,

oh but I don't. I just used to wonder how they justified it...until Althouse enlightened me.

If words have no fixed meaning, writer's intentions are meaningless and emotion is a valid part of reasoning, then the Leftist position on abortion (and many other issues) suddenly becomes understandable.....

Ann Althouse said...

"The Supreme Court did not rule that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

The Court said that the word "person" in the 14th Amendment did not include the unborn, but also that that did not resolve the issue presented in the case, which was about whether the woman, the person with due process rights against government, could be barred from ending her pregnancy. That depended on her fundamental rights and the state's interest in limiting them. The state argued that it had a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn, and when it came to the pre-viability phase of pregnancy, the Court analyzed the question in terms of the inability to answer the question when the unborn is a person. Given the difficulty of the issue, the Court saw it as belonging to the woman to form her own ideas. This is made even more clear in Casey, which characterizes the woman's role in terms of autonomy in forming her own ideas about the meaning of life.

If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman? The woman is not the government.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Question of the day: Which Scotus decision is less based on any actual reading/text of the constitution, Roe or Obergefell?

Honestly they are both horrible, regardless of your politics. Just horrible.

jaed said...

the person who happened into the role of Jane Roe

An interesting turn of phrase, as though the "role of Jane Roe" were pre-existing, and Norma McCorvey just happened to be there when they were casting it.

We like to think of the complaint of the plaintiff as driving the case, but in cases like this it's more like the law firms and activists are driving it, and just looking for the right plaintiff to come along at the pre-determined optimal time.

Otto said...

I never was too interested in the abortion issue because as Professor Bloom says it is probing into the basement which is an endless pit. It being the cornerstone of the feminist movement was even more cause to be indifferent. However last week all sorts of bios about McCorvey appeared and now being a retiree I read about her life and the abortion issue.
This women was a lowlife amoral women with her unmarried pregnancies who lied about being raped and was represented by a leaching amoral women lawyer who herself had an unmarried abortion in Mexico while in law school. And this is what the “noble” movement of feminism is about. What a farce.
So I was waiting to hear what feminist AA had to say. Well not going full frontal as usual ( her prerogative) she refers to this puff piece from the NYT.
“and left pregnant three times by different men” Note the blame is all one way with the word left. It was all the man's fault, she was just an innocent women. She wasn’t amoral, she was a victim. BS
“she sought refuge from poverty and dead-end jobs in alcohol and drugs” Note again the noble victimization with the words “sought refuge”. she went whoring to get more dope.BS
So this noble “movement started by two pieces of sh*t and abortion remains turns a contentious issue .
Note at the end who saves McCorvey, not some scheming lawyer, or members of the feminist movement, but the Lord Jesus Christ.
Bloom was correct the basement is an endless pit and best handled by Jesus and not by some leach lawyers.

jaed said...

If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman?

The unborn can make the case against the (state) government that he or she is being denied equal protection of the law, since killing this class of person ("person" arguendo) is legal. Who's doing it and why isn't generally relevant.

Thus, the court had to specify that the unborn isn't a person in the 14th amendment sense before it could reach the question of whether to deny states the power to regulate abortion, except within narrow limits. If the unborn is a person, it's pretty much a slam dunk that states not only can but must protect it under the existing laws against homicide.

I suppose you could try to fit abortion within the self-defense exception, but it's not going to fit well no matter how you torture it.

Mark said...

Yes, David, the Court said that growing unborn human life is "potential life" and is not a person under the law -- just as Dred Scott ruled that blacks had no rights that the white man was obliged to respect -- even though corporations were legal persons. And although the Court went through the theatrics of the trimester, in the companion case Doe, it said that health reasons -- including mental/emotional health reasons where the mother says that not having an abortion would cause her discomfort and annoyance -- allowed for abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy, all nine months, right up to the moment of birth.

Of course, later the Court would actually extend that "right" to terminate human life into the process of birth and, worse, after birth by allowing doctors to put a newborn on a table without care to die if an abortion had been intended.

Mark said...

It bears noting -- although even this was later shown to be fraudulent and exploitive as to the party plaintiff -- that Roe was one of the last abortion cases where, in asserting "women's rights," an actual woman was the named litigant. In nearly all other cases, the party suing is the abortionist, often a man, who by presuming to speak for women, effectively deny women their fundamental right to speak for themselves, particularly those women who vehemently object to what is being claimed on "their" behalf.

Fernandinande said...

Ann Althouse said...
The Court said that the word "person" in the 14th Amendment did not include the unborn,


That's clear (unless they're 'naturalized'): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... ."

This is bullshit part, and also where They claim the fetus is either not a human or not alive, and invent an imaginary turning point:
states may acquire “at some point in time” of a pregnancy an interest in the “potential human life” that the fetus represents, to permit regulation. It is that interest, the court said, that permits states to prohibit abortion after the fetus has developed the capacity to survive."

AA: If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman?

Trivial: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", in this case protection from being killed by another person.

Mark said...

In this age of fake news, having accepted the invitation to revisit the Roe opinion, what one finds there (and was remarked upon at the time) is a nice case of fake history by Blackmun, that is, a twisted misinformation presentation to justify his predetermined conclusion. There is an interesting account in Woodward's The Brethren about how the other members of the Court winced at the laughable quality of Blackmun's reasoning and opinion, a view shared with practically everyone outside the Court who read the opinion objectively, even if they supported abortion.

mockturtle said...

A hungry bear killed and ate Treadwell and his girlfriend.

How do you know the bear was hungry? Maybe he was just curious what a human would taste like. "Tastes like chicken".

Gahrie said...

The state argued that it had a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn,

It just refuses to do so...ever.

and when it came to the pre-viability phase of pregnancy, the Court analyzed the question in terms of the inability to answer the question when the unborn is a person.

Evidently the unborn is only a person when it is wanted by the mother but murdered by another.

Given the difficulty of the issue, the Court saw it as belonging to the woman to form her own ideas. This is made even more clear in Casey, which characterizes the woman's role in terms of autonomy in forming her own ideas about the meaning of life.

When does a man get to form his own ideas about the meaning of life and whether his unborn child is a person?

If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman? The woman is not the government

If the unborn child were protected by the 14th Amendment he would have the right to call on the government to protect his right to life from the actions of his mother. His argument against his mother would be that she is committing infanticide.

Gahrie said...

An interesting turn of phrase, as though the "role of Jane Roe" were pre-existing, and Norma McCorvey just happened to be there when they were casting it.

That is exactly what happened.

n.n said...

Denying "our Posterity" unworthy.

n.n said...

Ms. Cecile, tear down the privacy veil.

n.n said...

First, they disarmed our Posterity. Then, they disarmed the People.

n.n said...

How was Planned Parenthood's Mengele division (i.e. clinical cannibalism) approved?

Was it also with a ruling from the twilight zone?

A progressive slope.

Gahrie said...

he Court said that the word "person" in the 14th Amendment did not include the unborn, but also that that did not resolve the issue presented in the case, which was about whether the woman, the person with due process rights against government, could be barred from ending her pregnancy.

The Supreme Court had to find that the unborn child was not a person, because if not, then the issue in the case would revolve around the rights (including due process) of the child instead of the rights of the mother.

n.n said...

Denying evolution of human life from conception requires an extreme liberal, selective, really, interpretation of science, where the process is not merely modeled or estimated, but actually observed and reproduced, several million times annually.

Mark said...

There is the interesting section where Blackmun plays stupid and proclaims, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question." Of course, until there was expressed a desire for abortion, it was universally understood throughout science that a unique living organism results from the union of a living sperm and living ovum, which then takes in nutrients and continues in cellular processes to grow and develop, a state that everyone knows to be "life."

Setting aside the undeniable facts and science, after an excursion into Aquinas' laughable "ensoulment" ideas, which were never Catholic doctrine, Blackmun then puts the Court squarely in the Dred Scott camp with, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

And then adding, "In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

Oh the mystery! Oh the great unanswerable question! Humanity has shown brilliance on being able to answer almost every question under the sun, but this one is wholly impossible to ever know. In fact, when it comes to life, the only thing we can say for certainty is that we cannot know, we can never know, we can never say we know, we must obstinately persist in our intentional ignorance.

Mark said...

Blackmun and Roe would have been on stronger intellectual grounds (although still totally repugnant in human decency) if the Court had ruled simply, "Yes, the unborn baby is human and alive, but the mother has a right to kill."

On the other end of the spectrum of the culture of death there is increasingly less compunction about asserting a right to kill, even if it is couched in terms of mercy and compassion.

n.n said...

The abortion chambers remained viable with the privacy afforded them by ignorance and a powerful central government that denied human dignity and value, selectively (i.e. Pro-Choice). I wonder if there were activists to obfuscate the "final solution" from the "good" Germans.

C Stanley said...

If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman?

Isn't it more relevant argument against doctors who are licensed by the state to perform the killing? They are acting as agents of the state, so it goes directly to the question of protection if right to life.

Fernandinande said...

Mark said...
Setting aside the undeniable facts and science ...


Everyone needs a hobby, and that one sounds like easy fun. The hard part is tricking other people into paying you for doing it: that's where their supernaturally powerful brains come into play.

Oh the mystery! Oh the great unanswerable question! Humanity has shown brilliance on being able to answer almost every question under the sun, but this one is wholly impossible to ever know.

The tangled webs they weave are job security for lawyers.

mockturtle said...

There is no difference between a woman having a late-term abortion and one throwing an unwanted newborn in a dumpster.

Mark said...

"As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." Mr. Justice White, dissenting.

Fernandinande said...

AA: If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman? The woman is not the government.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws.
"At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy."

Laws protecting entities which are without any legal rights. "Fascinating, Captain."

John Andrew Welden is charged with the murder of a person who was never born.

Gahrie said...

"The Supreme Court did not rule that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

The Court said that the word "person" in the 14th Amendment did not include the unborn,


From Roe:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. .... But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]


1) Interesting word "nearly".

2) It could be also said that none indicates, with any assurance, that it doesn't have any possible pre-natal application.

Fernandinande said...

Gahrie said...
When does a man get to form his own ideas about the meaning of life and whether his unborn child is a person?


Ask John Andrew Welden.

Mark said...

it seems the pro-life side should be racing to advance science to support fetal development outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages.

I'm afraid that you have failed to appreciate the whole point of "abortion rights." It is not about what is asserted in their euphemism "termination of pregnancy." Rather, it is about getting rid of the baby altogether. It is about a right to a dead baby. Termination plus live baby is not what is wanted -- just look at the cases of an attempted abortion where a live birth happens. In those cases, the abortion right extends to not providing medical care to the newborn baby, and the pro-abortion lobby has fought hard against laws requiring that care be provided.

Mark said...

About personhood -- to be a person, one must first be alive. And Blackmun ruled it unconstitutional to even recognize in law that the unborn were living.

Mark said...

It is not about what is asserted in their euphemism "termination of pregnancy."

And, just as it isn't really about "termination of pregnancy," and just as it really isn't about women with nearly all of the abortion cases being pushed by men and abortionists (every woman being used like Norma McCorvey was), also "abortion rights" have nothing to do with "choice." Just look at how the pro-abortion lobby has gone to war over expressions of choice that are not for abortion, i.e. "choose life" license plates.

AND, legalized abortion has nothing to do with women's health and safety. Just look at how militant the pro-abortionists are in opposing any regulation that is designed to prevent Gosnell's chamber of horrors.

Gahrie said...

If the unborn were a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, what would be the argument that the unborn could make against the woman? The woman is not the government.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

n.n said...

it seems the pro-life side should be racing to advance science to support fetal development outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages.

In the meantime, let's deny life unworthy. It's only a matter of time until the work is done.

rcocean said...

"The Court said that the word "person" in the 14th Amendment did not include the unborn,"

You mean THAT court did. There's absolutely no reason why ANOTHER court rule that a fetus is a person and entitled to 14th Amendment protection. It's been line with all the other SCOTUS Rulings to twist the original purpose of the 14th Amendment to support anything they want.

Humperdink said...

"A hungry bear killed and ate Treadwell and his girlfriend".

Treadwell loved bears and a bear loved Treadwell - raw. As opposed to say, medium rare. Nature's tough, especially if you're stupid.

FullMoon said...

Otto said...

...
This women was a lowlife amoral women with her unmarried pregnancies who lied about being raped and was represented by a leaching amoral women lawyer who herself had an unmarried abortion in Mexico while in law school. And this is what the “noble” movement of feminism is about. What a farce.
So I was waiting to hear what feminist AA had to say. Well not going full frontal as usual ( her prerogative) she refers to this puff piece from the NYT.
“and left pregnant three times by different men” Note the blame is all one way with the word left. It was all the man's fault, she was just an innocent women. She wasn’t amoral, she was a victim. BS
“she sought refuge from poverty and dead-end jobs in alcohol and drugs” Note again the noble victimization with the words “sought refuge”. she went whoring to get more dope.BS
So this noble “movement started by two pieces of sh*t and abortion remains turns a contentious issue .
Note at the end who saves McCorvey, not some scheming lawyer, or members of the feminist movement, but the Lord Jesus Christ.


I knew some dangerous people who became "born again". Never been a believer but am happy for those that are. Envious even, sometimes.

Humperdink said...

Never too late FullMoon. Find yourself a bible believing church and wander in. That's what I did.

Otto said...

@FullMoon. I wish you happiness and peace.

Gospace said...

Trumpit said...
I oppose the senseless killing of life. That is why I oppose hunters and hunting. It should be outlawed.


Every hunter I know, and living in rural America, that's a lot, eats what they kill. Hence, the killing is not senseless. Also know a lot of fishermen. Who eat what they catch.

I don't hunt. I prefer someone else do the killing and package it neatly in plastic so I can buy it in reasonable quantities and bring it home to cook. But I don't fool myself as to what the meat once was. Some of my meat likely resided next door in the cow pasture. Of across town in a pig lot.

Deanna said...

Mark at 11:46
Gosnell's house of horrors indeed. Reading that book now and plan to pass it around to anyone who can stomach the story. People need to know this, especially young people. One of the most stomach-turning lines was spoken by a PA Dept. of Health worker (a woman) to excuse the lack of action for YEARS after it was known that his clinic was unsafe for women, not to mention babies: "People die". Abortion itself is a moral evil, but the natural unintended consequence is the complete lack of value for life in general.

It's a riveting read by an investigative journalist team that stumbled on the story quite by chance (or Providence). They were not hunting out an opportunity for a hit piece.

Ann McElhinney, one of the authors, prefaces the book by saying "I never trusted or liked pro-life activists. Even at college I thought them too earnest and too religious. I thought the shocking images they showed were manipulative. ...So back off, prolifers with your scary pictures. Once you have this mentality it's very easy to dismiss prolife activists. And the universities of the world are teeming with young people just like that young person I once was."

Gosnell by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. We bought our copy through the Althouse portal ;)

Unknown said...

Is all about Dr. Ekpen, is good and powerful he can help you solve what problem you are facing, all you need to do is to contact him and tell him your problem, be rest assure that your problem will be solve. Contact him today at ekpentemple@gmail.com or on whatsapp +2347050270218.

AndyN said...

TreeJoe said...
Althouse, I've never studied Abortion law. I read in the NYT article that the Roe v Wade decision allows abortion up until the fetus' life can be sustained separately from the mother. Is that accurate?


I didn't see anybody actually answer this question. It's my understanding that the decision in Doe v. Bolton, which was released the same day, essentially did away with any restrictions that Roe v. Wade left in place.