Roe vs. Wade heads back to courtroom

San Antonio Express-News ^ | 02/20/2004 | Maro Robbins

[He Rides A White Horse]

You're here to play footsy Jeff. Why not simply state why you are here?

[Qwinn]

She's actually been against abortion for quite a few years now, after converting to Christianity. She's one of the most vocal advocates against it, and you really can't ask anyone to be more of an activist than she is. She claims she was used as a pawn by the lawyers at the time when she didn't know any better, and I wouldn't put it past them.

I've read a fair amount concerning Roe, and I'm inclined to believe that her conversion is genuine.

Qwinn

[Judith Anne]

I do too.

[Jeff Gordon]

I'm inclined to believe that her conversion is genuine.

I never claimed her conversion was not genuine. I did not and I do not.

She was being used as a pawn for one side in 1973. She is now being used as as pawn by the other side 2004. Yawn.

[Qwinn]

Um. So who is "using" her now? She's written books, she heads a pro-life organization, I believe. If you're going to claim she's a pawn -now-, then anyone who is activist for any cause is a pawn of someone else.

Me, I'm very very pro-life, and not for religious reasons (being agnostic). So whose pawn am I?

Qwinn

[Tribune7]

I see. Being pro-abortion when she wanted to be rid of her mistake and then becoming anti-abortion after menopause does not benefit Ms Roe.

Actually, she never had an abortion.

[He Rides A White Horse]

She was being used as a pawn for one side in 1973. She is now being used as as pawn by the other side 2004. Yawn.

......and what side are you coming from?

[Jeff Gordon]

Me, I'm very very pro-life, and not for religious reasons (being agnostic).

Me too. So what?

So whose pawn am I?

I do not know. Show me some articles, books, publications or something that shows who is using you as a pawn. Show who is pointing to you and saying "See! Qwinn is now pro-life."

[Jeff Gordon]

she never had an abortion

Thank you. I did not know that.

[Jeff Gordon]

what side are you coming from?

The side that says the end does not justify the means.

[Qwinn]

Uh, no one is really pointing at her and saying "See! She is pro-life!" -SHE- is the one saying it, over and over and over. She's speaking for herself. She didn't do that in 1973. In 1973, they put words in her mouth. Hell, if I remember correctly even then she didn't actually have the abortion. That's my point.

Perhaps we're defining being "used as a pawn" differently.

By your definition, it seems to me like any spokesman for any cause would qualify as a pawn.

Qwinn

[He Rides A White Horse]

The side that says the end does not justify the means.

In this particular case, the 'end' is the end of wanton slaughter........how do you feel about that?

[He Rides A White Horse]

Qwinn says:

Me, I'm very very pro-life, and not for religious reasons (being agnostic).

You say: Me too. So what?

I doubt that......I doubt you are very, very pro-life; as a matter of fact I would guess you are a 'moderate'.

How else could you say both sides are engaged in playing a pawn?

There are two sides here: Pro, and Against.

[He Rides A White Horse]

You're not interested in any truth here, you simply want to muddy the waters and sow confusion with your open ended statements.

[Judith Anne]

I agree.

[Jeff Gordon]

You're not interested in any truth here,

I really am, but you can not or will not see it. Let's leave it at that before people who are on the same side of an issue get needlessly pissed off at each other.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I really am, but you can not or will not see it.

I see it alright.

No checkered flag for you today, Mr Gordon.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I really am, but you can not or will not see it.

.....very well then, tell us how you feel, or what you are thinking.

Please keep it to 10000 words or less.

[He Rides A White Horse]

You are putting forth the idea that both sides of the issue are using pawns.......and regardless of what side you take on this issue, you promoting a very cynical point of view.

The point of view that says neither side can be trusted.

I don't know about you, but I am really, really pro-life......and I don't subscribe to what you are saying.

What do you think pro-lifers are trying to accomplish? Controlling a woman's body as the pro-abortion industry types would submit.........or is it something more noble than that?

I'm sure of the answer to that one.

[He Rides A White Horse]

He thinks he is going to stake out 'no man's land' as a position, and debate from there.