i never said anything about Norma specifically, nor did I say anything about the issue of Roe v. Wade qualitatively, but you have to admit, whether or not you like the issue or do not like the issue, it is of no help to the pro-choice movement that she did switch sides. it DOES give ammunition to the other side. regardless of your feelings on the issue, you have to be able to see the point. I was not trying to make the issue relate to abortion, nor did I give a viewpoint on abortion. I gave an example about how advocates current positions affect the moral authority of using them, specifically, as an example.
of course there are other arguments for the pro-choice side, there are valid arguments on both sides, however, one valid argument that can no longer be effectively used, is how well the situation worked out for Jane Doe, originally considered the most important figure. her role is now downplayed by the pro-choice movement.
there again, there is nothing in what I said that counts as an endorsement on either side of the subject, simply describing how early activists changing their opinion affects the debate on the subject, please leave the emotional baggage surrounding the word abortion at the door when the example doesn't even include any positioning on the subject.
the example could have been about any issue, just one of the most well-known ironic flip floppers of all time, regardless of how many obscenities you want to describe her with, is Jane Doe. If you can't appreciate the irony in that, you simply have Anger Goggles on looking at the whole subject, which is not a debate subject, just a historical analysis subject.
like, you may think Lincoln was a terrible president of the United States, but you can't deny that he WAS president of the united states at one point. When people list presidents of the united states, most people will include Lincoln.
when they make a list about abortion flip floppers, they will include Mitt Romney and Jane Doe, its not a debate issue, its just a concrete fact.
