Talk:Roe v. Wade

Should we add something about how Roe had the kid and became pro-life? I can imagine how it's not relevant, but I can also picture it both relevant and interesting--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reference for it, throw a sentence or two in somewhere. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

References are easy to come by. My personal bias is to say no, cause this article is really about the case and Ms. Jane Roe, not Ms. McCorvey . She gave birth because she was not allowed to abort (the reason she went to court). Her pro-life stance is important to the Right, cause they have a model "it was right for me, but not you" type speaker. If you do add it, the cites are pretty easy for us to find.--GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 03:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he said how "Roe had the kid," not a Ms. McCorvey. I dunno. Whatevs. Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To protect her rights, McCorvey was shielded as Jane Roe; because texas law denied her the right to an abortion, she sued the state. Due to crazy ass american laws, you have to be **currently effected** by the laws, to sue against it, so no "might be pregnant" woman could sue. It had to be a pregnant woman. Of course, law suits take 2 years. McCorvey had her child before the first trial ended. I *think* she gave it up for adoption, but am not sure. either way, she now claims she never wanted the abortion in the first place, and even if she did want the abortion, god prevented her from having it so no one else should have one either. And the right just loves her! --GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Should an article be made on Norma McCorvey? While she's a 'hero' of the pro-life movement now, she's pretty clearly just making a nice living off of them and is willing to say whatever she needs for some green (like she's lied about not knowing what an abortion was, about her situation, the whole 'oh yes I had a relationship with a woman and then became anti-LGBT'), and apparently charges large lump sums to speak with her). It might be interesting to at least document how even the pro-life's centerpiece figure is literally just in it for the money.^{— Unsigned, by: 98.165.31.153 / talk / contribs}

Pro-Life vs Anti-Choice

I'm surprised there's nothing on this talk page about which term RW prefers. Considering the recent edit, perhaps this should be discussed? Mikecol05 (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Both terms are fairly emotionally charged. Obviously, anti-choice is the more ridiculous of the two, and is about as accurate and leading as saying those in favor of the ruling are "anti-life". I think as long as you're consistent (I.e. use pro-choice and pro-life to refer to each camp), then those are fine descriptors, but you're still open to some interpretation of bias. Obviously, picking and choosing an inconsistent pair of descriptors is just an attempt to poison the well of the other camp. Probably the most neutral designations are 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion' as they don't inherently imply which is correct, just the factual nature on who supports what. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Logically

Any legislation reversing Roe V Wade should also invoke gun control - 'guns kill children after all.'

Also - those in favour of such restrictions should also state how many children they are willing to adopt (especially those with serious/life-limiting medical conditions - being one reason for abortion) - and give 10% of their income to 'Homes for motherless orphans.'

As for the leak - in 'The Beiderbecke Tapes' there is a 'tape which presents a worst case scenario' leaked in the hope that when the actual legislation involved is made public (which is what is actually wanted) it will be accepted as 'not as bad as.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Religious conservatives have founded more orphanages than abortionists. JeffL143 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But how many of the children with severe medical problems, the product of rape/incestuous rape etc will they themselves adopt? Will they accept compulsory long term contraception #for themselves#, especially if men? (A man can be responsible for far many, many pregnancies? Will they accept the removal of the internet and the mail from the USA (as the relevant information which can be fined for will so be sent) and transport?

Anyone wanting to take the thought exercise to its logical conclusion can (as being a Brit I do not have the relevant material). Anna Livia (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anna Livia None. They'll do nothing to care for these children, not even fund orphanages. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Then they are hypocrites to the nth degree - and should be 'called out' on the costs and consequences. (A legislative chamber repeatedly filled with unwanted infants 'being a place of safety where they can be dealt with' would concentrate their minds wonderfully.) Anna Livia (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)