Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Eugenics

[LowDown]

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.

Promotion of a policy that increases the harvest of dead babies of a particular socioeconomic status because one is concerned about the effects on society of letting them live is eugenics.

As Ginsburg said: "It makes no sense to promote birth only among poor people." It could not be any more clear.

No, the GOP has no hope because of racism

Time will tell which of us is engaging in wishful thinking.

case in point

So you assume that people who value liberty and self reliance and demonstrate excellence in their endeavors will always be white. I don't agree. Even now that is manifestly untrue.

 

[sangha]

Promotion of a policy that increases the harvest of dead babies of a particular socioeconomic status because one is concerned about the effects on society of letting them live is eugenics.

As Ginsburg said: "It makes no sense to promote birth only among poor people." It could not be any more clear.

Yes, "only among poor people" shows she thinks birth should either be or not be promoted for *all* which is not eugenics.

It's the right who is promoting eugenics.

 

[LowDown]

Yes, "only among poor people" shows she thinks birth should either be or not be promoted for *all* which is not eugenics.

Her main concern is that it's the children of poor people who would be more likely to be born under policies she opposes. Of course that's eugenics.

It's the right who is promoting eugenics.

The left was a big supporter of eugenics for a long time. They stopped talking about it but their policies, which have the same effects as policies that are openly eugenic, remained the same. In the past there were those who advocated voluntary birth control and abortion and others who were for mandatory sterilization and abortion. Mandatory sterilization of the infirm and insane was implemented and those policies remained in force until the early 70s in some states. California is one example. It didn't break down along party lines before the war. These days left wingers are uniformly and monolithically in favor of voluntary abortion and birth control under the rubric of "choice", which, when seen in the context of history, is pretextual. These policies have had a devastating effect, for example, on the population of black Americans, as was originally intended.

Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories. Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged,for example the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful.[60] Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[61] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable".[60] This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[61] Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion for fit women was illegal in Nazi Germany.[62]

- Wikipedia

 

[sangha]

Her main concern is that it's the children of poor people who would be more likely to be born under policies she opposes. Of course that's eugenics.

No, that is not her main concern.

Your entire argument is based on lies.

The right supports eugenics