Roe wants Roe v. Wade OVERTURNED
 

2003 and women are about to lose control of their bodies.

Can you say NEW AND IMPROVED Supreme Court?

**************************************

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._203bodyap.jpg

US abortion pioneer seeks ban

McCorvey has reversed herself on abortion since 1973
The woman at the centre of the landmark case that made abortion legal in the United States has asked for the decision to be reversed.

Norma McCorvey - the formerly anonymous "Roe" in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v Wade - filed a motion requesting that a Dallas court examine what she called new evidence that abortion is harmful to women.

"I feel like the weight of the world has been lifted from my shoulders," Ms McCorvey, 55, said at a news conference in Texas on Tuesday.

The abortion-rights group Naral Pro-Choice America dismissed the case as "a sad anti-choice publicity stunt.

"Instead of leaving private medical decisions up to a woman and her doctor, anti-choice forces want the government to decide," the group said in a statement.

"This case shows the extreme lengths to which they will go to overturn our constitutional right to choose," the statement said.

If Ms McCorvey's motion for a hearing is granted, the proceedings could open the door for the Supreme Court to revisit the case.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America and may become more prominent in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

New legislation

The US House of Representatives voted earlier in June to ban so-called "partial birth" abortions.


Abortion is among the most contentious issues in the US
The US Senate voted in favour of a ban on the form of late-term abortion in March, and US President George W Bush is expected to sign the ban into law.

It will be the first legislative restriction on a woman's right to choose since Roe v Wade.

Anti-abortionists are also pressing for legislation that would consider the foetus an individual in case of violent crimes against pregnant women.

They have already won the blessing of President George W Bush, himself a staunch opponent of abortion.

The move has however greatly alarmed pro-choice campaigners, who see it as part of a wider mission to establish foetal rights and undermine the right to abortion.

Ground-breaking

Ms McCorvey found herself associated with the critical Supreme Court case when she sought an abortion to end her third pregnancy.

Attorney Sarah Weddington, an abortion rights advocate, took up the case, which challenged the Texas law banning abortion.

Ms McCorvey had the child - and put it up for adoption, as with her two previous children - before the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guaranteed women the right to an abortion.

She identified herself as Roe in 1980 and has since made a number of anti-abortion statements.

On Tuesday, she asked the federal district court in Dallas to consider thousands of pages of documents - including 1,000 statements from women who say they regret their abortions.

The Texas attorney general and the Dallas district attorney must respond within 20 days.

:(

heres an idea, be responsible so that there is no fetus to be killed.

I concur, women are irresponsible.

:winkwink:

Even worse, they often need men to make decisions about what to do.

:thumbsup

I am being facetious

Who cares what ROE wants? That's not even her fucking name anymore.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Abortion is murder. If someone (male or female) is old enough to make the decision to have sex, they are old enough to be responsible for a child that might come along as a result of that decision. And having become pregnant using the pill and the shot at the SAME TIME myself, I can attest that abstainence or hysterectomy are about the only ways to TRULY prevent conception.

I'm pro choice, but I agree with you almost. Not being stupid in the first place is better than being stupid and having an abortion.

However, sometimes accidents happen. In that case, women should have a right to choose what they do with their bodies.

As far as Roe, who gives a fuck what she wants? This is not about her, it's about the women's rights to do what they want with their own bodies. She can't change the consitution just because she changed her mind about abortion.

Imagine if Rosa Parks decided tomorrow that all black people should have to sit on the back of the bus after all. Would anyone care? Not likely.

Takes two: male and female engage in sex equals a possible child.

:)

Most women I know go to their family & friends before asking the "fuckward" what to do.

:)

You can ban abortion as long as you legalize sterilization. Too many little bastards running around. I say sterlize everyone who isn't me.

mute point.

And do some more research...

:)

Research on what? You want a Supreme Court case reference instead? The ruling has been made, it doesn't matter what she thinks 30 years later.

it's moot

Welcome to Facism!

Your body is not yours.
Its the governments.

I agree 110%.



Not a big fan of the church backing of this, but I agree that it should be illegal in many many circumstances.

Death is not a form of contraceptive.

The point is, though, where do the rights of one human end and the rights of another one begin? Yes, it's the woman's body, but it's also the baby's LIFE. People can argue all they want to that a fetus isn't really alive until it's X months old, or until it's born, but it's just not true.

If a woman makes the CHOICE to have sex, then she makes the CHOICE to possibly have a child. Period. By the time she gets pregnant, she's already made her "choice". I'm pro-choice... I think the fetus has the right to chooe life. :)

Life is never an accident.

I hate to argue with people, but murder of anyone (whether "legal" or not) is unethical and immoral and it's the one thing in this world I will truly stand up and fight against. People who believe in abortion have the right to believe what they choose, but the babies have their rights, too.

Yes, and apparently the government thinks the babies bodies belong to them, too, since they are allowing them to be savagely murdered and calling it legal.

Thank you

moot=debatable

mute=voiceless

:)

Waaa waaa waaaa.

Listen up.

You can't kill someone or something that has no ability to live on its own, it's not a life.

That's like saying that getting a facelift and cutting off some skin is equal to abortion.

When it comes to the point that the fetus can support itself outside the womb, then it's a different story altogether for the majority of sane and rational people.

Are you:

1. Pro-choice.
2. A traitor who hates America.

Choose one.

"Ms McCorvey found herself associated with the critical Supreme Court case when she sought an abortion to end her third pregnancy.

Attorney Sarah Weddington, an abortion rights advocate, took up the case, which challenged the Texas law banning abortion.

Ms McCorvey had the child - and put it up for adoption, as with her two previous children - before the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guaranteed women the right to an abortion. "
---------------------

And little Ms McCorvey's a fine one to be voicing opinions about anything. Perhaps she could explain how she fucked up and gave up THREE kids for adoption? She's 55 now, so by the time she was 25 this was her life?

Oh, I see, so a person who has a heart attack and enters a coma and who's body temporarily cannot support itself without the aid of a respirator can legally be murdered? Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all.

A baby has a heartbeat around 4-6 weeks after conception. That's before alot of women even realize they are pregnant. I think a beating heart is a sure sign of life to me.

Ethics and Morality do not belong in laws.

This seems to be a favorite lie of pro-lifers. She doesn't make the choice to have a kid if she has sex, she makes the choice to have sex. Doh. There is no binding contract.. except in your overactive imagination.. that binds a woman to possibly having to have a child if she has sex.

typical woman.

can't make up her mind.

Um, YES they can. It's called a DNR order, and in case you need help deciphering, it stands for DO NOT RESUSCITATE.

Either the victim, thru a Living Will, or the next of kin, can sign this order and it's then a legally binding contract. Or murder as you seem to call it.

Funny, I didn't look at it that way when my dad was in the hospital dying. I looked at it as a way to give the man his dignity in the last moments of his life. But that is a whole other discussion.

That may be the most retarded analogy I've ever heard. A person who has a heart attack isn't a parasitic organism which damages its hosts body in order to sustain its own life. A fetus is.

Do you see that smug ass look on the redheads face in that picture?

Hands up everyone who is pro-life and wanted to nuke Iraq...

Do you think masturbation is equivalent to abortion?

Abortion is still legal in the first trimester. BTW, most women know within a month and a few days. How long does it take to tell a boyfriend?



:)

Anything said about pro-choice is just justification of murder, period.

And DNR's are typically ordered for those who will never again have a chance for a normal life. It would NOT be done for someone who would be perfectly normal and happy in a few months if given the chance, as in the case of a baby.

I know about DNR's. Years ago my fiancee was given a DNR by his family, but it was something he himself had requested be done in such an event. HE chose it.

And yes, a woman chooses to have a baby when she chooses to have sex. Just like if you CHOOSE to drive drunk then you CHOOSE the possibility that you could crash and die. One choice that could lead to another is still a choice. You make a choice when you think you are well-informed on the subject, at least so much so that you are aware of the consequenses of your decision. If you are aware of the possible negative aspects of your decision, and you still do it, then you MUST take responsibility. With choice comes responsibility.

If you have sex, you could get HIV, too. You can't just cut that out of you. But if you have sex, you're obviously willing to take that chance.

If you think a baby is a parasite, then welcome to the world. We all were once. I for one am very grateful that my mother did not "choose" to murder me and I'm sure most of you are glad your mothers also cared enough not to kill you. I have nothing more to say on the subject because it's all been said. Murder is murder, whether it's called murder, the death penalty, or abortion.

Like I said, I hate to argue with people, so I'm done. Have at it all you want to. But someone has to stand up and speak for the little voices that can't do it for themselves yet.

I can't imagine anyone with half a brain believing that allowing the government a decision such as this is anything but horribly dangerous.

Furthermore the fact that you - generally speaking - did not personally have an abortion when faced with the decision does not solidify your argument. You still had the Choice.

Unlike your opinions about "murder", the fetus = parasite is simply a biological fact.

If my mother had chosen to abort me I wouldn't be here to whine about it.. so no problem.

Bottom line is you can repeat "abortion is murder" 'till you turn blue in the face, but the law.. not your opinions.. defines murder, and the law says it isn't.

Many people don't realize that Roe is not the end of the debate. Abortion does not become illegal if its overturned. California already has legislation in place to keep abortion legal in the event Roe gets shitcanned, and many other states would follow suit.

:thumbsup
a fetus is the definition of a parasite. Abortion laws are just another example of someone trying to push their morality onto others.

I'm TOTALLY against abortion period. But what would you do if you were 9,10,11,12 yrs. old and you were molested by your father and became pregnant?

Some ppl like myself would keep the child or give it up for adoption but, some ppl have other views on things. What would you do?

That is simply ridiculous. I don't know one pro-choice person who is pro-abortion much less pro-murder. You seem to be under the impression that pro-choice equals pro-abortion. Sad really considering the argument is about CHOICE. If you'd like to hand over your body to our government, you go right ahead. Most women I know prefer to make their own decisions. It must be the silly belief that we know what we need/want.

Choosing to have Sex is choosing to have Sex, period. Choosing to have sex it is not choosing to have a child, another flat out ridiculous statement. I do love how the women is the only one choosing a child in that statement, does a man choose to impregnate at every ejaculation???

Shall I be the first to point out the utter and complete lack of common sense or thought process that went into this statement?