Roe v. Wade plaintiff says she was paid to switch to anti-choice side

[SaysWho?]

Quote

 

In the documentary, the Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister, says that anti-abortion groups paid Ms. McCorvey to speak out against abortion because they were afraid she would go back to the abortion rights side.

 

“What we did with Norma was highly unethical,” Mr. Schenck says.

 

Quote

 

Norma McCorvey, the anonymous plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion throughout the United States, said she had later spoken out on behalf of the anti-abortion movement only because she was paid to do so, according to a new documentary.

 

Ms. McCorvey made the revelation just months before her death in 2017, according to the 80-minute documentary, “AKA Jane Roe,” which was made available to reporters ahead of its Friday premiere on FX. She said that her support for the anti-abortion movement in the later years of her life had been an act.

 

“I was the big fish,” Ms. McCorvey says in the documentary, which was filmed in the last few months of her life and was directed by Nick Sweeney. “I think it was a mutual thing,” she says. “I took their money, and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say.”

 

 

The argument that Norma changed her stance never was relevant anyway (whether something is the right thing to do, constitutional, etc., stands on its own), but this further nips it.

[Chairslinger]

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The argument that Norma changed her stance never was relevant anyway (whether something is the right thing to do, constitutional, etc., stands on its own), but this further nips it.

 

 

While I won't say "our side" never does things like this, it is the right(and particulary the religious right) that is obsessed with it.

 

I have always suspected it is because in their worldview if you can invalidate the head of a certain belief, that invalidates their belief. Like  if you invalidate their guy(i.e. Jesus) it invalidates their beliefs, so the same must follow for us. I have had many an argument explaining why proving Richard Dawkins can be a dick doesn't disprove atheism. Benefit of not believing "your guy" is the omnipotent ruler of the universe is that that it makes their opinions more of an al a carte deal.

 

Anyway, my two favorite examples is that they did something very similar with Anthony Flew in his older years. He was old, in poor health, and possibly getting a little soft in the brain so they paid him to endorse some vague Deism.

 

Also, the quintisential example of this, though not in the monetary sense, is that supposed Darwin deathbed conversions stories are so numerous they're pratically like Christian campfire tales at this point. You know, because a guy converting on his deathbed would invalidate a century and a half of Biology

[SuperSpreader]

29 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

I have always suspected it is because in their worldview if you can invalidate the head of a certain belief, that invalidates their belief. Like  if you invalidate their guy(i.e. Jesus) it invalidates their beliefs, so the same must follow for us. I have had many an argument explaining why proving Richard Dawkins can be a dick doesn't disprove atheism. Benefit of not believing "your guy" is the omnipotent ruler of the universe is that that it makes their opinions more of an al a carte deal.

I never thought of it that way! Thank you. 

[thewhyteboar]