• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Eugenics

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
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.
 
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.



Come back and tell us all about this 30 years from now when the demographic change that's coming at the GOP right now hits it like a tidal wave and reduces it to a small, regional, party




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time,GOP.
 
Come back and tell us all about this 30 years from now when the demographic change that's coming at the GOP right now hits it like a tidal wave and reduces it to a small, regional, party




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time,GOP.

If I have to come back in 30 years, people aren't going to like what they see. Seriously, the death of the GOP has been predicted for decades. Sooner or later it will happen, so keep on predicting. Eventually you will be correct.
 
If I have to come back in 30 years, people aren't going to like what they see.
Seriously, the death of the GOP has been predicted for decades. Sooner or later it will happen, so keep on predicting. Eventually you will be correct.



I'll be mighty happy to see you (Or anyone.) in 30 years. I'll be 101-years old then.
 
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.

This is the justice that said Egypt shouldn't look to the U.S. Constitution as a model for theirs because ours violates human rights. It goes to the larger problem of people assuming that those in power over us are smarter than us. If the CDC director is any clue, some of them are complete morons thrust into positions of power by political maneuvers that have nothing to do with their abilities or intelligence. Even lacking a college degree, I'd put myself up against many of these clowns any day. They're nothing but ideological hacks and they aren't very smart.
 
Come back and tell us all about this 30 years from now when the demographic change that's coming at the GOP right now hits it like a tidal wave and reduces it to a small, regional, party

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time,GOP.

It doesn't work that way. The parties both always position themselves so as to get a sizable chunk of the electorate, and they will continue to do so. Democrats don't support segregation, Jim Crow laws, or poll taxes any more. And Republicans likewise have changed their platform. Previously it was Republicans that wanted to open up immigration and build railroads and bridges and now it's Democrats who want to do that.

Besides which, consider what would happen if one party did totally dominate in our system. In that case the contest would be between various factions of that party. The same thing done a slighly different way. For the longest time while the Democrats held Congress it was split between conservatives and liberals. The Republicans who were left went and played golf while the Democrats argued about policy. Divisions were every bit as great as if the Democrats were actually split into two parties. In other words, to think that the liberals would get to enact their wish list when Democrats dominate isn't realistic. They didn't get to do that in 2008-2010.

But for the most part the parties change as the electorate changes. It's silly to think they'd do otherwise.

In the meantime, abortion on demand probably does mean that the nation is more conservative than it otherwise would be. Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate or reduce undesirable groups of people through voluntary birth control and abortion. She could not have been more successful.
 
Last edited:
This is the justice that said Egypt shouldn't look to the U.S. Constitution as a model for theirs because ours violates human rights. It goes to the larger problem of people assuming that those in power over us are smarter than us. If the CDC director is any clue, some of them are complete morons thrust into positions of power by political maneuvers that have nothing to do with their abilities or intelligence. Even lacking a college degree, I'd put myself up against many of these clowns any day. They're nothing but ideological hacks and they aren't very smart.

If you look at hiring policies at the Federal level it's no mystery why those people are not very smart. It works this way: Disabled veteran > veteran > minority > anyone else. If a minimally quailfied person isn't available in the first group you look at the second group, and so on.

The head of the CDC, though, is no dummy. He has done good work in the past, but apparently he was hired because he's so rabidly partisan.
 
LowDown;1063876741[B said:
]It doesn't work that way.
[/B]The parties both always position themselves so as to get a sizable chunk of the electorate, and they will continue to do so. Democrats don't support segregation, Jim Crow laws, or poll taxes any more. And Republicans likewise have changed their platform. Previously it was Republicans that wanted to open up immigration and build railroads and bridges and now it's Democrats who want to do that.

Besides which, consider what would happen if one party did totally dominate in our system. In that case the contest would be between various factions of that party. The same thing done a slighly different way. For the longest time while the Democrats held Congress it was split between conservatives and liberals. The Republicans who were left went and played golf while the Democrats argued about policy. Divisions were every bit as great as if the Democrats were actually split into two parties. In other words, to think that the liberals would get to enact their wish list when Democrats dominate isn't realistic. They didn't get to do that in 2008-2010.

But for the most part the parties change as the electorate changes. It's silly to think they'd do otherwise.

In the meantime, abortion on demand probably does mean that the nation is more conservative than it otherwise would be. Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate or reduce undesirable groups of people through voluntary birth control and abortion. She could not have been more successful.



That's what you think right now. As I've said many times, tell me all about it 30-years from now.
 
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.

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?

You are lying about what she said.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4&ref=magazine

She clearly does not say that she supports eugenics or believes that abortion is (or should be) legal in order to reduce the # of poor people.

Instead, she says that it was her perception that the SCOTUS that decided RvW (which did not include her) wanted to reduce the # of poor people and she then admits that she was completely wrong.

Once again, the anti-choicers have resorted to lying in a lame attempt to prove that they're morally superior than pro-choicers because even they know that their beliefs are an immoral perversion.
 
Last edited:
You are lying about what she said.


She clearly does not say that she supports eugenics or believes that abortion is (or should be) legal in order to reduce the # of poor people.

Instead, she says that it was her perception that the SCOTUS that decided RvW (which did not include her) wanted to reduce the # of poor people and she then admits that she was completely wrong.

Once again, the anti-choicers have resorted to lying in a lame attempt to prove that they're morally superior than pro-choicers because even they know that their beliefs are an immoral perversion.

No. The material showing I'm correct is right in front of you in the OP. She is quoted from the magazine article, and it is clearly her concern that anti-abortion policies are encouraging the birth of children of poor people.

She was wrong about what other people thought, but she tells us flat out what she thinks.

"It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people."
 
No. The material showing I'm correct is right in front of you in the OP. She is quoted from the magazine article, and it is clearly her concern that anti-abortion policies are encouraging the birth of children of poor people.

She was wrong about what other people thought, but she tells us flat out what she thinks.

"It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people."

Supreme Court Justices can afford to be frivolous with their opinions since they can't be asked to recuse themselves on cases that come up relevant to their comments. Every other judge in the country has to keep their ignorant traps shut.
 
Supreme Court Justices can afford to be frivolous with their opinions since they can't be asked to recuse themselves on cases that come up relevant to their comments. Every other judge in the country has to keep their ignorant traps shut.

Ginsburg is just repeating what she learned as a young progressive. Eugenics is still part of the progressive ideology. After WWII they just learned to keep quiet about it. As Ron Weddington, co-counsil on Roe v Wade, told President Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”
 
No. The material showing I'm correct is right in front of you in the OP. She is quoted from the magazine article, and it is clearly her concern that anti-abortion policies are encouraging the birth of children of poor people.

She was wrong about what other people thought, but she tells us flat out what she thinks.

"It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people."

As the quote I posted shows, your OP is filled with lies about her supporting eugenics and believing that abortion being legal was to limit the # of poor people

As far as her statement goes, that's not eugenics; it's the opposite. She's arguing that abortion should not promote the increase in a segment of the population which is the exact opposite of eugenics. Next time, try to understand what the word means before you start a thread about the subject of eugenics.

By supporting policies which increase the # of poor, the right wing is practicing eugenics.
 
By supporting policies which increase the # of poor, the right wing is practicing eugenics.

Which policies would that be? It's the Leftist "war on poverty" that's sustained, increased, and generationalized poverty. Your welfare, your housing projects, your programs, your fault. Deal with it.
 
As the quote I posted shows, your OP is filled with lies about her supporting eugenics and believing that abortion being legal was to limit the # of poor people

Now you're just lying. The OP clearly shows that she's expressing her own opinion on abortion, which in her opinion should be freely available to poor people so that more of their children will be eliminated. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.

As far as her statement goes, that's not eugenics; it's the opposite. She's arguing that abortion should not promote the increase in a segment of the population which is the exact opposite of eugenics. Next time, try to understand what the word means before you start a thread about the subject of eugenics.

What utter nonsense. She advocates a policy that increases the number of children of poor people who are killed because of her concern about the social effects of doing the opposite. That's the very essence of eugenics.
 
There have been at least a dozen or so of these lying RW threads on lefties tonight alone.
Is this how it was before the 2012 with these so-and-sos ?

You are lying about what she said.


She clearly does not say that she supports eugenics or believes that abortion is (or should be) legal in order to reduce the # of poor people.

Instead, she says that it was her perception that the SCOTUS that decided RvW (which did not include her) wanted to reduce the # of poor people and she then admits that she was completely wrong.

Once again, the anti-choicers have resorted to lying in a lame attempt to prove that they're morally superior than pro-choicers because even they know that their beliefs are an immoral perversion.
 
Now you're just lying. The OP clearly shows that she's expressing her own opinion on abortion, which in her opinion should be freely available to poor people so that more of their children will be eliminated. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.

You LowDown people do not have a bottom floor to yer lying sleaze do you LowDown?
If poor people had more children you'd complain about that LowDown--as you have in the past.
This OP is a rather low-rent form of the blatant lying false-equivalency of the GOP .
 
Come back and tell us all about this 30 years from now when the demographic change that's coming at the GOP right now hits it like a tidal wave and reduces it to a small, regional, party




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time,GOP.

you mean losers will vastly outnumber those who don't suck on the public tit?
 
You LowDown people do not have a bottom floor to yer lying sleaze do you LowDown?
If poor people had more children you'd complain about that LowDown--as you have in the past.
This OP is a rather low-rent form of the blatant lying false-equivalency of the GOP .

I have in fact said that I support abortion because more liberals get them and children follow their parent's politics 75% of the time. I just think it's funny to see liberals being hoisted by their own petard.

I don't recall supporting the elimination of the children of poor people in that way.

Many conservative and progressive Christians opposed eugenics just as they opposed slavery while other progressives have in the past been wildly supportive of eugenics; here and there they let it slip out even today. There is simply no question that eugenics was embraced by many progressives for years. There's no false equivalence about it.

Who is it that supports Planned Parenthood, which has most of it's facilities in poor and minority communities? Not conservatives.
 
Now you're just lying. The OP clearly shows that she's expressing her own opinion on abortion, which in her opinion should be freely available to poor people so that more of their children will be eliminated. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.

You clearly claimed that she supports eugenics. That was a lie.



What utter nonsense. She advocates a policy that increases the number of children of poor people who are killed because of her concern about the social effects of doing the opposite. That's the very essence of eugenics.

NO, what she says is that the right is supporting a policy which increases the # of babies that poor people have.

Again, I suggest you learn what the word eugenics means before talking about it.
 
you mean losers will vastly outnumber those who don't suck on the public tit?



No, I mean that more people will be voting against the GOP than will be voting for the GOP.

Future demographics look very bad for the GOP. The old white men in the USA will be outnumbered by the other people.
 
You clearly claimed that she supports eugenics. That was a lie.

No, this is not correct. She clearly does support eugenics.

NO, what she says is that the right is supporting a policy which increases the # of babies that poor people have.

Again, I suggest you learn what the word eugenics means before talking about it.

How evil do you have to be to lie so much? If she opposes a policy that allows the babies of poor people to live because of her concern for the effects this would have on society, a concern of hers that is clearly evident, then she is supporting eugenics.
 
No, I mean that more people will be voting against the GOP than will be voting for the GOP.

Future demographics look very bad for the GOP. The old white men in the USA will be outnumbered by the other people.

So you have a hope based on racism. How pathetic.

As I have explained in other posts, your hopes are illusory. The GOP will welcome all who value freedom, the rule of law, and self reliance regardless of their race. There is no question that there will be people who prefer to be makers rather than takers because otherwise the nation won't exist. Their "privilege" will just be them being better than you.
 
No, this is not correct. She clearly does support eugenics.



How evil do you have to be to lie so much? If she opposes a policy that allows the babies of poor people to live because of her concern for the effects this would have on society, a concern of hers that is clearly evident, then she is supporting eugenics.

You've got it backwards. I won't accuse you of lying because I've read some of your other posts so I believe you truly don't understand what was said. She's not saying that abortion should be used only for poor people, or targeted at them. She's saying that abortion is not as accessible to poor people and is arguing that it should be accessible to everyone in equal measure.

"Equally accessible" is not eugenics. What we have now (easily accessible to everyone but the poor) is eugenics because it is not equally accessible.

So you have a hope based on racism. How pathetic.

No, the GOP has no hope because of racism

Their "privilege" will just be them being better than you.

case in point
 
Back
Top Bottom