Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 143

Thread: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

  1. #71
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    However, I don't have any problem with wealthy people using contraception or having abortions if they don't want kids. It's their choice. They are usually able to take care of their kids though, so society isn't typically as invested in their decision.
    Ok, so you are against poor people having kids because you don't want to pay for the cost of social programs, but you object to folks who say there is no moral duty to have such programs in the first place.

    A most schizophrenic philosophy you have there. So what is it about poor people that you resent them so much?

  2. #72
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,555

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So you're going to personally pay all of society's costs associated with the extra poor kids?
    Happily. Because the most valuable thing in society is it's future generation.

    Legalized abortion is only "encouragement" in the sense that it leaves people alone to do what they want to do anyway.
    I wonder why you chose the word "encourage" then. There seems to be a "deeper" part in this. It's nice to see that you don't use the cover of "womens' choice". Please, tell me, what do you find to be "undesirable"? What do you think is ideal?
    I do not agree that abortion is killing children. Next?
    Ok, not allowing fetuses to become children and to become adults. Does that make you feel better about the situation?
    Yes, it's true that not all poor kids will grow up to be criminals and/or live on welfare. And not all non-poor kids will be fine upstanding citizens. But we aren't talking about an individual kid here, we're talking in general. The law of large numbers applies. Children of poor parents are much more likely to become poor themselves, and thus more likely to be a drain on society's resources.
    So you would support the abortion of the next "Barak Obama"(to be born to poor parents of course) on the fact that some statistic says it is likely that he would become a "undesirable"?
    If you're willing to shoulder all the costs associated with more poor kids in the world, be my guest. Otherwise, quit your bitching.
    Of course I do on principle , I'm just wondering why you don't. Isn't a society judged on how it treats it's worst-off? Nice to see that your solution includes encouraging their "elimination".
    Last edited by DarkWizard12; 07-10-09 at 11:46 PM.

  3. #73
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And what do any of your cliches have to do with the fact that social programs do exist, their main beneficiaries are the poor, and fewer poor people means less money spent on these programs that you consider wasteful?

    The main point of that line is that majority of the social programs dont teach people anything. They create a dependence, Johnson's War on Poverty has failed epically.

    Other Note: This has to be the most assine thread of the week.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  4. #74
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,555

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    The main point of that line is that majority of the social programs dont teach people anything. They create a dependence, Johnson's War on Poverty has failed epically.

    Other Note: This has to be the most assine thread of the week.
    Actually, it reveals something I've known for a long time, but I didn't think anyone on the other side would go out and admit it, albeit, roundabout.

  5. #75
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Ok, so you are against poor people having kids because you don't want to pay for the cost of social programs, but you object to folks who say there is no moral duty to have such programs in the first place.
    I believe that anti-poverty programs are an economically wise idea. It does not follow, however, that it is a wise idea to have as many poor people as possible. That doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    A most schizophrenic philosophy you have there. So what is it about poor people that you resent them so much?
    Who says I resent them?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #76
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    Happily. Because the most valuable thing in society is it's future generation.
    And how does preventing a huge number of poor kids from being born detract from that? I'm not advocating the complete elimination of reproduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    I wonder why you chose the word "encourage" then. There seems to be a "deeper" part in this. It's nice to see that you don't use the cover of "womens' choice". Please, tell me, what do you find to be "undesirable"? What do you think is ideal?
    Having kids that you (or society) can't afford is undesirable.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    Ok, not allowing fetuses to become children and to become adults. Does that make you feel better about the situation?
    Yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    So you would support the abortion of the next "Barak Obama"(to be born to poor parents of course) on the fact that some statistic says it is likely that he would become a "undesirable"?
    You have no way of knowing in advance which child is going to be the next Barack Obama. All we have are statistics which indicate that the poor are more likely to drain society's resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    Of course I do on principle , I'm just wondering why you don't. Isn't a society judged on how it treats it's worst-off citizens? Nice to see that your solution includes encouraging their "elimination".
    I fully support anti-poverty social programs, so yes, I think a society is judged (to some degree) on how it treats its worst-off citizens. That doesn't mean we can't take prudent steps to limiting the number of worst-off citizens. On the contrary, it means that we'll have more resources to take care of the ones we do have, for less taxpayer money.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #77
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fair enough. So just to clarify since I specifically asked about contraception instead of foreign aid in general: Do you believe that A) distributing condoms in Africa doesn't reduce the birth rate, B) it does reduce the birth rate but that doesn't have any positive economic effect, or C) it does have a positive economic effect but you just don't care anyway because it isn't your problem?
    I don't believe that my tax dollars should be wasted on birth control in Africa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #78
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    The main point of that line is that majority of the social programs dont teach people anything. They create a dependence, Johnson's War on Poverty has failed epically.
    The effectiveness of social programs is not the topic of this thread.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't believe that my tax dollars should be wasted on birth control in Africa.
    Tough ****. I don't think my tax dollars should go for a war in Iraq or many other things. Do we now get to pick and choose? Great, I have a long list of **** I don't want my tax dollars used for, doesn't mean I get a choice in it.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The effectiveness of social programs is not the topic of this thread.
    No, but it has diverged to such. Thus the reason it was brought up.

    Specifically, you believe that the poor are a burden on society, to be given crumbs to survive, and allowed to kill themselves off otherwise.

    Amazingly you don't realize the moral flaw in your position.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •