Does anyone else find this ironic

Question

Norma Mccorvey- the plaintiff in the famous Roe V Wade case in 1973 is not staunchly Pro-Life.

She wrote a book about it and has been fighting to get the ruling overturned. I read somewhere that she said she felt manipulated by her attorneys that had their own agenda.

Another irony is she never had an abortion. She gave her daughter up for adoption.

Answer 1

There's no point in picking apart the plaintiff - everyone's a human with their own human faults and flaws. The point behind the case is that the government can no longer force women to carry a child to term by criminalizing (and therefore marginalizing and taking away any regulatory safety terms) a medical process.  

Answer 2

Norma McCorvey was never a "well" woman from the get-go. She was a serious neurotic and allowed herself to be manipulated by anyone who handed her a cup of coffee. She never had an abortion because, I believe, by the time the court finished deliberating, the pregnancy was near to term. SCOTUS rulings are often handed down months after the case has been heard by the justices.

She has changed her mind on the topic a number of times.

By the way, she originally claimed to be a L*****n. Now she claims she's "no longer" a L*****n. She converted to Christianity. She at first claimed she was raped, but then said she wasn't.

Answer 3

No matter which side you are on, a reasonable person would admit Roe V Wade was constitutionally flawed.

Answer 4

Big fat yawn. Why is it that conservative/religious/wacko Americans accept the rule of law when its convenient, but drone on about it when it isn't and contravenes the morals laid out by mythological religion (accepted by almost all, religious and non-religious)?

Answer 5

That is slightly ironic. I would never have suspected this. Now how come her name isn't either Roe or Wade and yet she was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade? That's pretty odd in itself.

Also, can we stop calling it a woman's right to chose and start calling it a woman's right to free aboritions on demand?  

Answer 6

It doesn't matter. The moral correctness of the ruling has nothing to do with the person that brought about the court ruling in the first place.

It may be ironic, but it's even more insignificant.  

Answer 7

Many people believe she has been manipulated by the anti-abortion lobby, not her former attorneys.  

Answer 8

People will always like to impose their view on other people. Even if that mean they don't follow those views themselves.

Answer 9

The reason she never had an abortion is because these cases take a while to get through the court system; by the time it was decided, she'd long since had her baby.  Maybe she was used by the attorneys, but she's hardly the only person to be used as a pawn to make someone's political point.  Ask Paula Jones.

There are also those who were anti-choice and changed their views to the pro-choice side.

Answer 10

I don't find it ironic.

She was defending the principle.

I am not Muslim, but I would defend in principle the Muslim's right to practice Islam or any other religion they wanted to in this country.

I would defend the principle of religious freedom.

Ms. McCorvey was defending the principle of a woman's right to choose.

She just happened to "choose" adoption.

Good luck !