:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 ::

"Roe" (Norma McCorvey) of Roe v. Wade is trying to overturn her law. Sarah Weddington, the abortion fanatic who represented "Roe" in the 70's case, has this to say:

"The chances of [Roe's new case] getting to the Supreme Court are so small that we might as well talk about the moon falling out of the sky first," Weddington said. "The only thing I can imagine is that Norma McCorvey hasn't been getting much publicity lately and was out to get some."

There are two possible explanations for Weddington's comments:

1. She is scared out of her socks.
2. She is completely out of touch with reality.

To claim that this is an individual publicity stunt is irrational when you consider the 1,000 women who sent in their notarized testimonies in an effort to join Norma in overturning Roe v. Wade. However, sometimes unethical people will make suggestions that they know are not true in order to convince others that they are. They believe that if they say it enough people will begin to believe it. It's an old advertising trick that actually works on some. Weddington may be functioning on this level.

Another possibility is that Weddington honestly believes nothing can touch Roe v. Wade. This is a little silly considering the fate of other "untouchable" laws such as those having to do with slavery. Surely Weddington realizes that technology is just a tad more advanced than it was in the 70's, and the question of when life begins has been answered by science. It's time for a review of Roe v. Wade because it's outdated cruelty that is detrimental to all of society.

The beginning of human life has been established, and our constitution says every human being has the fundamental right to life. In fact it's the very first right listed. Conversely, there is nothing anywhere in the constitution that affirms or defends the so-called "fundamental right" to revoke someone else's right to life. That would be a blatant contradiction.

It's amazing that abortion advocates have gotten away with it for so long, but their time is coming to an end.

Don't look now, Sarah - the sky is falling.


:: ashli 5:03 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?