The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies - Infanticide isn't wrong because The Queen of the Pro-Life Movement could be bought with money!

(Archive)

This week, it was revealed that Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe,” admitted on her death bed that her late-career anti-abortion crusade was all a ruse funded by the Christian right. Laura Bassett takes a hard look at the house of cards the American anti-abortion movement was built upon.
BY LAURA BASSETT
May 20, 2020

In 1973, the plaintiff “Jane Roe” brought a case to the Supreme Court that would legalize abortion throughout America. So it was quite a surprise when, in the mid-1990s, Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, suddenly emerged as an anti-abortion activist. She wrote a book about her change of heart, spoke at multiple annual March for Life rallies, and even filed a motion in 2003 to get the Supreme Court to re-decide her case. “I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women,” she said at the time. “I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children.”

As it turns out, that conversion was all a big lie, bought and paid for by the Christian right. In the new documentary AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey confesses on her death bed in 2017 that her change of heart was “all an act” that Evangelicals and anti-abortion groups had paid her nearly half a million dollars to perform. “I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” McCorvey says bluntly.

On its face, this revelation is a bombshell. McCorvey’s about-face on abortion has been the subject of countless profiles and stories in many prestigious outlets, and anti-abortion activists love to bring it up any time the subject of Roe v. Wade arises. But the fact that conservatives were paying McCorvey all along to dupe America shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to abortion politics. Today’s whole “pro-life” movement was built on a lie, and they’ve had to lie in increasingly elaborate ways to stay relevant.

Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support. Segregationists, meanwhile, had their own racist reasons. George Wallace, the longtime governor of Alabama, a Democrat who would later join the far-right American Independent Party, four-time presidential candidate, and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.

Around the same time, white evangelicals had been trying to avoid desegregation by sending their kids to private, tax-exempt, segregated religious schools. Then in 1971, the Supreme Court decided in Green v. Connally that racially discriminatory schools could no longer claim tax-exempt status. This infuriated and mobilized evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, who owned one such school in Virginia, to get involved in politics. And it so happened that conservative political activist Paul Weyrich had been looking for ways to harness the political power of white evangelicals to grow the Republican Party. “Weyrich understood that racism—and let's call it what it is—was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals,” historian Randall Balmer explained to NPR on the subject.


So Weyrich tried to make pornography the wedge issue, he tried prayer in schools, he tried the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed equal legal rights to women, and none of those issues really rallied his troops. “I was trying to get people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he later admitted at a conference in 1990. Then, six years after Roe v. Wade in 1973, Weyrich and Falwell noticed that conservatives were starting to get uncomfortable with the spike in legal abortions after the landmark case and with the sexual, social and economic freedom that reproductive rights had brought to women. So they went all in on making abortion a wedge issue that could marry the Christian right and the GOP. They founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organization that essentially used abortion to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term, and made reproductive rights the political rallying cry it is today.

Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the beginning of an era in which Republican candidates relied on white evangelical enthusiasm to win, and he is considered by some to be the “father of the pro-life movement.” But even Reagan did not appear to hold genuine views on the issue; as governor of California in 1967, he had signed a bill into law that decriminalized abortion in the state, long before Roe v. Wade. Then as president, he said he regretted that move and suddenly opposed all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Under his leadership in the ‘80s, the anti-abortion movement radicalized—they ramped up protests at women’s health clinics, pouring glue into the locks and chaining themselves to the doors until they got arrested.

This renegade activism culminated in the first murder of an abortion provider in 1993—and that obviously wasn’t going to cut it as a lasting political strategy for a movement that called itself “pro-life” heading into the future. So they found increasingly deceptive, elaborate ways to manipulate people’s emotions about the procedure. In 1995, the National Right to Life Committee coined the term “partial-birth” abortions, and George W. Bush later signed a bill banning them, despite the fact that the term does not apply to any known medical procedure and is couched in language so vague that it could apply to any abortion procedure.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals were funding thousands of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country, which lure scared pregnant women in with deceptive billboards and internet listings and even staff-members in fake medical garb, and then outright lie to these women to steer them away from abortions and even birth control. One woman said she was told at a CPC in Virginia that condoms don’t work because they’re “naturally porous” and that birth control causes memory loss and cancer.

In the late 2000s, the movement put Planned Parenthood in its crosshairs. An anti-abortion group called Live Action started sending undercover actors with hidden cameras into the family planning provider’s clinics, pretending to be a pimp and prositute looking for an abortion or some other wild scheme, and then heavily editing the videos for YouTube to make it look like Planned Parenthood was committing a crime. The most infamous of these, in which the group claims to have caught Planned Parenthood trafficking fetal body parts after abortions, dropped in 2015, giving House Republicans an excuse to launch a $1.59 million investigation into the women’s health organization. The investigation turned up no evidence to indict Planned Parenthood, but the whole issue was inflammatory enough to propel abortion into being a top issue in the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump won that election, of course, thanks largely to evangelical Christians overlooking his lack of morality and eyeing that empty Supreme Court seat.

As recently as February Trump and Republicans tried to push the false narrative that women were aborting their babies after birth. “It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it’s murder,” former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said at a conservative conference in February. Trump tweeted that Democrats are “so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.” Obviously, murdering a baby would be infanticide, which is already illegal.

The clearest sign that your movement is built on a house of cards is having to repeatedly lie to your supporters to keep them around. In reality, roughly two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights and would like to see Roe upheld. The Republican leaders trying to push anti-abortion laws are swimming upstream, and they know it.

On the abortion rights side, the message has been consistent: A woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy or not should be between her and her doctor, and perhaps her family, if applicable. No tricks, no sting videos, no deception. Perhaps McCorvey said it best in the film, after decades of being a fake mouthpiece for a movement trying to strip women of their reproductive autonomy.

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion—fine,” she says. “That’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’ It’s your choice.”

Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.
 
They're straight white incels now. Neither their opinions nor their bases matter.

They're irrelevant. Hell, they're not even real.

This comment isn't real.



You're talking about a process that the female body expressly develops for as though it were a medical condition more akin to HIV/AIDS.



So, we should kill children in the womb in the meantime literally just because their mother doesn't want them (in most cases)?



You realize that children are dependents of their parents, right? You can't "legally disconnect" yourself from your child outside adoption.



The point is that after birth, the mother can arrange for the child to be put in some kind of custody. You couldn't do that before that point without killing the child or otherwise substantially risking their death.
Sounds like we've got this mystery all wrapped up. When Roe v. Wade gets repealed I'll start a super successful government funded biotech company who specializes in fetal adoption through implantation. Sometimes the baby dies during the proceedure but no technology is perfect.
 
On the other hand, a few years ago, a bunch of joggers had a 5K about Planned parenthood aborting 25 million lil' joggers since Roe v Wade was decided. Really puts a guy in a tough position
I’m also very conflicted. On one hand it’s murder, on the other hand it’s 25 million less blacks.

Birth control was created by a catholic

a bad catholic considering the church’s teaching


It's especially interesting in light of the fact that socially conservative black Christians have pretty similar views on abortion to Catholics, a most white Christian group.

That’s interesting. 100% of Catholics should consider abortion to be wrong in all/most costs. I wonder how many of them don’t think it’s wrong and how many think it’s wrong but shouldn’t be legislated against.
 
"Muh medical autonomy" is an insultingly obvious bad faith position. No-one gives a shit about you, they give a shit about the unborn child that you're carrying. At what point it goes from being a "clump of cells" to an actual child is the only point worth debating. It's arguable that the moment of fertilisation is too early, but it is beyond doubt that it becomes a legitimate baby before birth, and beyond that point abortion is infanticide.
 
"Muh medical autonomy" is an insultingly obvious bad faith position. No-one gives a shit about you, they give a shit about the unborn child that you're carrying. At what point it goes from being a "clump of cells" to an actual child is the only point worth debating. It's arguable that the moment of fertilisation is too early, but it is beyond doubt that it becomes a legitimate baby before birth, and beyond that point abortion is infanticide.

I don't care if they're fucking full grown, if they can only survive by sucking my blood, that motherfucker is dying.
 
I don't care if they're fucking full grown, if they can only survive by sucking my blood, that motherfucker is dying.

Not sure if it's still the case, but if I recall correctly, the legal limit for abortion in the UK was/is set by the earliest time after which a premature baby can survive outside the womb (determined empirically). So the option of abortion after a certain point could be replaced by medically induced birth or Caesarean section.
 
You really are touching on what makes the whole debate so tricky: It's 99% about how you define "human."
...
If you define the "clump of cells" as a person, I think it's pretty clear that most people agree the only good reason to kill it is in self defense (if taking the pregnancy to term would lead to your own death)
Why death? Killing it to stop it from poisoning and mutilating your body is self-defense as well.

Some Kiwi doctor posted a good explainer that I can't find now, but the gist is this: the human pregnancy term is what it is not because of the fetus's size but because of the amount of waste it produces.

At what point it goes from being a "clump of cells" to an actual child is the only point worth debating. It's arguable that the moment of fertilisation is too early, but it is beyond doubt that it becomes a legitimate baby before birth, and beyond that point abortion is infanticide.
If it becomes a baby before birth, beyond that point abortion is killing a felon in self-defense.

Not sure if it's still the case, but if I recall correctly, the legal limit for abortion in the UK was/is set by the earliest time after which a premature baby can survive outside the womb (determined empirically). So the option of abortion after a certain point could be replaced by medically induced birth or Caesarean section.
Unfortunately, it can't. Preterm birth carries a huge risk of lifelong medical problems for the child. (On the other hand, forced pregnancy and childbirth damages the physical and mental health of the mother.) Abortion at all stages is both the most humane and the most economically sound option.

Yes, it means irresponsible whores will put more of a strain on medical services, but it's not like they'll be profiting from it. A late-term abortion and the pregnancy which led up to it hurts more than an early-term abortion. Forced pregnancy and childbirth cannot be a punishment, especially for such as victimless a "crime" as promiscuity. We don't even rape pedos with wire brushes, ffs.
 
Why death? Killing it to stop it from poisoning and mutilating your body is self-defense as well.

Some Kiwi doctor posted a good explainer that I can't find now, but the gist is this: the human pregnancy term is what it is not because of the fetus's size but because of the amount of waste it produces.

Um.. you may want to revise that last sentence, but I think I get the idea... And maybe that is an argument if you think any form of bodily harm is and excuse for killing someone. This is part of that "1%" that isn't about definitions (though it is a new argument to me so maybe more than 1%). But that lends itself to the question of whether it's okay to kill someone if they're about to break your legs and you omnisciently knew they would do nothing else. And that is still debatable in its own right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squidbot
Why death? Killing it to stop it from poisoning and mutilating your body is self-defense as well.

Some Kiwi doctor posted a good explainer that I can't find now, but the gist is this: the human pregnancy term is what it is not because of the fetus's size but because of the amount of waste it produces.


If it becomes a baby before birth, beyond that point abortion is killing a felon in self-defense.


Unfortunately, it can't. Preterm birth carries a huge risk of lifelong medical problems for the child. (On the other hand, forced pregnancy and childbirth damages the physical and mental health of the mother.) Abortion at all stages is both the most humane and the most economically sound option.

Yes, it means irresponsible whores will put more of a strain on medical services, but it's not like they'll be profiting from it. A late-term abortion and the pregnancy which led up to it hurts more than an early-term abortion. Forced pregnancy and childbirth cannot be a punishment, especially for such as victimless a "crime" as promiscuity. We don't even rape pedos with wire brushes, ffs.

Just to be clear, I am not actually particularly anti-abortion; my position is that if you don't want a child, it's probably for the best for everyone that you don't have one. That being said, your arguments are mostly retarded. An unborn child can't be a felon just by existing (an existence that is due to an act in which the mother participated). At some point, the fertilised egg becomes a child (as I said, it is difficult to define when that happens) and then its right to life has to be taken into account alongside the rights of the mother. It is a difficult ethical matter, but the "my body, my choice" argument is highly disingenuous and deliberately missing the point.
 
It is a difficult ethical matter, but the "my body, my choice" argument is highly disingenuous and deliberately missing the point.

That’s because “I don’t wanna stop getting high and drunk for nine months or get fat or experience morning sickness etc or have to give birth” isn’t as convincing.

Name one. I've listened to many conservatives over the years. Literally none of them have been against birth control. Maybe they personally disagree with using it but never mentioned that it should be made illegal.
All Catholics should oppose birth control, although I don’t believe that they are a significant voice in US discourse. Furthermore, birth control is more an issue of individual moral failing than murder so there certainly would be much less support to criminalise birth control than abortion amongst Catholics
 
I’m also very conflicted. On one hand it’s murder, on the other hand it’s 25 million less blacks.
Yeah I was completely against abortion until I learned of the founders goal for Planned Parenthood. I had a change of heart and now I completely support minority rights to abort, it means less crime and tax money won't be wasted.

Truthfully only white women shouldn't be allowed to abort.

Tldr: dead niggers are good, thanks abortion.
 
Last edited:
You really are touching on what makes the whole debate so tricky: It's 99% about how you define "human." All of these arguments about poverty or low education or feminism or religion or whatever the fuck are mostly red herrings.
Obviously, killing a person is not okay no matter how poor or stupid you are. Nor is it okay to do in order to avoid responsibilities for your actions. And it's definitely not okay to do it to assert your "reproductive rights." If you define the "clump of cells" as a person, I think it's pretty clear that most people agree the only good reason to kill it is in self defense (if taking the pregnancy to term would lead to your own death) or to save the life of another (someone ordering the abortion to protect the life of someone who, for any reason, is incapable of ordering it themselves).
On the other hand: if it really is "just a clump of cells" until a certain point, abortion is the ethical equivalent of dumping yogurt down the drain.

Arguments about how we define things are always tricky because definitions depend on what people mean when they use the word.


One of my favorite "prove me wrong" memes is "a fetus and a comatose person are the same thing,"

It's not murder to abort a fetus, it's not rape to fuck a comatose person. they're both a clump of cells.
 
Abortion should still be legal in my opinion

That being said, it should mainly be an option of last resort or in extreme cases like rape, incest, or medical emergency. Otherwise, just spend the five bucks on a box of condoms.
 
Last edited:
The people who are opposed to abortion are against paying for other people's birth control, you disingenuous kike faggot.

Nah, some of the hardline traditionalist faggots want to ban abortion and birth control, but those guys are edgy spergs no different than the SJW's and fedora-tippers. Nobody gives a fuck what the sperg hardliners on either side think though.

Really, birth control isn't that expensive as people think. The Pill is expensive, but that's not the only form of birth control.

A box of condoms costs like five or ten bucks at Walgreens or CVS.

Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.
 
Last edited:
Nah, some of the hardline traditionalist faggots want to ban abortion and birth control, but those guys are edgy spergs no different than the SJW's and fedora-tippers. Nobody gives a fuck what the sperg hardliners on either side think though.

Really, birth control isn't that expensive as people think. The Pill is expensive, but that's not the only form of birth control.

A box of condoms costs like five or ten bucks at Walgreens or CVS.

Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.
Conversely the whole male birth control thing was a pretty interesting avenue.
Shame it got bulldozed by pearl-clutching faggots, but hey feels over reals.
 
The people who are opposed to abortion are against paying for other people's birth control, you disingenuous kike faggot.
Oh yeah how could I forget about the absolutely miniscule amount of Federal money given to Planned Parenthood, in total you probably give less than a dollar to Parenthood via taxes yearly. Also LMAO why am I not surprised A&Ntards pulled out the "teh jooz" argument.

Name one. I've listened to many conservatives over the years. Literally none of them have been against birth control.

Maybe they personally disagree with using it but never mentioned that it should be made illegal.
I'd argue making birth control hard to get for millions goes beyond "personally disagreeing with it".
 
Oh yeah how could I forget about the absolutely miniscule amount of Federal money given to Planned Parenthood, in total you probably give less than a dollar to Parenthood via taxes yearly.
Even if it's miniscule, why should someone be forced to pay for something they find morally reprehensible?
I'd argue making birth control hard to get for millions goes beyond "personally disagreeing with it".
Not forcing companies to cover/sell a product is not a ban on the product.
 
Last edited:
It is pretty optimistic to assume that this lady didn't take money to be pro-choice test case in the first place. If she took money to turn pro-life, she didn't have any real conviction about abortion but was just looking out for herself. Proving she can be bought isn't quite the gotcha they think it is.

Pro-choice people wouldn't be quite as insufferable if they would stop treating abortions as something to be proud of and joking about kicking out an unwanted tenant. That kind of flippant attitude isn't helpful. I'm pro-choice, but it is a difficult decision that is a necessary evil -- not a feminist badge of honor. If you think it is no big deal to have an abortion -- you aren't mature enough to have sex to begin with. Keep your legs closed until you grow the fuck up. And if you didn't use contraceptives and you aren't underage, I've got not sympathy for you.

But, pro-life people irk me as well. They want everyone to have the baby, but don't want their tax dollars going to raise that child if they are born to a poor mom. Then they are all like, well, if you can't pay for the kid you shouldn't have had it in the first place. Well, duh. And who is going to raise all those tard babies, drug addicted babies, and even healthy minority babies? There is a high demand for healthy white babies and not so much for the others. Even the white celebs who adopt non-white babies prefer to go to other continents to adopt. They aren't really adopting black American babies. They want something more exotic. We'll just end up with some Russian style orphanages where kids end up permanently damaged because there aren't enough homes to take them in.

Even if it's miniscule, why should someone be forced to pay for something they find morally reprehensible?

Not forcing companies to cover/sell a product is not a ban on the product.
What if a business owner refuses to cover insulin if you have Type 2 diabetes because you are a fat fuck? That's not banning the product but it would make it much harder for you to get it if you have to pay out of pocket. Especially if you are a minimum wage worker. I don't really think that employers should get to dictate what a doctor can or cannot prescribe for the employee. That should be a private matter between the doctor and patient.
 
Back