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.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.I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, enjoying the irony that a policy liberals promote is probably slowing wiping them out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LowDown;1063876741[B said:[/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.]It doesn't work that way.
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.
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?
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
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."
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.
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."
By supporting policies which increase the # of poor, the right wing is practicing eugenics.
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.
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.
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 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 .
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.
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.
you mean losers will vastly outnumber those who don't suck on the public tit?
You clearly claimed that she supports eugenics. That was a lie.
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.
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.
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.
So you have a hope based on racism. How pathetic.
Their "privilege" will just be them being better than you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?