- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 8,768
- Location
- Houston
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a lengthy interview to a fashion magazine in which she returned to the theme of eugenics, a favorite of hers. As before, she explained Roe v Wade in terms of population control, "Particularly growth in populations we don't want too many of." Now she complains that we are not putting enough resources into killing the children of poor people. Or, as she puts it, "the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women." "It makes no sense to promote birth only among poor people."
Indeed. I personally have long supported abortion on demand in part because liberals are so much more likely to utilize that option than others. This can only have beneficial effects for the nation's politics and policies since 2/3rds of children follow the politics of their parents. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, enjoying the irony that a policy liberals promote is probably slowing wiping them out. Savor also the irony that the President is working for certain immigration policies in the hopes of boosting the liberal voting rolls while liberal policies on abortion have eliminated tens of millions of black and other potential liberal voters.
Those who thought that it is liberal to regard policies as inhumane that classify mothers and children as desirable or undesirable on the basis of socioeconomic status may be forgiven their confusion.
But who would have thought that this old fossil of a liberal would still be holding on to eugenics long after it had been discredited? Some liberals were great supporters of eugenics back in the day, and then the Nazis came along to show them the implications of that particular ideology. I guess if, as liberals and progressives, you are out to perfect society, as the Nazis were, then you've got to deal with the imperfections any way you can. The idea of eugenics is bound to resurface.
Indeed. I personally have long supported abortion on demand in part because liberals are so much more likely to utilize that option than others. This can only have beneficial effects for the nation's politics and policies since 2/3rds of children follow the politics of their parents. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, enjoying the irony that a policy liberals promote is probably slowing wiping them out. Savor also the irony that the President is working for certain immigration policies in the hopes of boosting the liberal voting rolls while liberal policies on abortion have eliminated tens of millions of black and other potential liberal voters.
Those who thought that it is liberal to regard policies as inhumane that classify mothers and children as desirable or undesirable on the basis of socioeconomic status may be forgiven their confusion.
But who would have thought that this old fossil of a liberal would still be holding on to eugenics long after it had been discredited? Some liberals were great supporters of eugenics back in the day, and then the Nazis came along to show them the implications of that particular ideology. I guess if, as liberals and progressives, you are out to perfect society, as the Nazis were, then you've got to deal with the imperfections any way you can. The idea of eugenics is bound to resurface.