• 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 Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of'

In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50819

Hitler would have been so proud.
 
Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of'


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50819

Hitler would have been so proud.

It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.
 
However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.

Which is why there is a lot of truth to the argument that the Pro-life Movement is all about protecting the fetus. Once the fetus becomes a child they have no interest in the government doing anything to support the child.
 
. . .
However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.
Let us know if that ever happens, m'kay?
 
Which is why there is a lot of truth to the argument that the Pro-life Movement is all about protecting the fetus. Once the fetus becomes a child they have no interest in the government doing anything to support the child.

I'm sorry you think it's more humane to kill babies then to be against cradle to grave socialism.
 
It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.

Why don't we just kill the poor, that too would keep down the cost of entitlements.

[/sarcasm]
 
I'm sorry you think it's more humane to kill babies then to be against cradle to grave socialism.

You are completely missing what I am saying or blatantly misconstruing what I am saying...not sure which.

What I am saying is that the pro-life movement is 100% behind protecting the fetus, however as soon as the fetus becomes a child, they are against doing anything to support the child.
 
It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.


Kandahar, as long as we keep paying poor Mommas more in Welfare entitlements for each child they have, I don't think it is going to quite work that way in actual fact.
 
It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

However, that *is* the best effect of abortion IMO. Reducing the birth rate among the poor will help keep down the costs for entitlement programs, reduce crime, protect the environment, and generally improve the quality of life for Americans.
Seems like you're saying that Justice Ginsberg's first perception was correct--even if she didn't support the rationale.

How many rounds of the eugenics debate must we have before we acknowledge the fundamental and unequivocal evil of the concept?
 
It's not like she said that she SUPPORTED that rationale at the time. Besides, you forgot that she concluded that statement by saying "And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Lots of former Einsatzgruppen members changed their mind about the Holocuast since WW2, also.
 
Why don't we just kill the poor, that too would keep down the cost of entitlements.

[/sarcasm]

Uhh because that would require, you know, killing the poor. :2wave:
 
I'm sorry you think it's more humane to kill babies then to be against cradle to grave socialism.

If you're against cradle-to-grave socialism, then reducing the birth rate of the poor should be a top priority for you. Who do you think are the main recipients of many social programs?
 
Originally Posted by Crunch
Why don't we just kill the poor, that too would keep down the cost of entitlements.

The Liberal Democrats would lose too many votes. The objective is to create more poor people.
 
Kandahar, as long as we keep paying poor Mommas more in Welfare entitlements for each child they have, I don't think it is going to quite work that way in actual fact.

Well reducing the birth rate among the poor will cut down on those welfare entitlements, won't it?

I'm not sure which point I made you are disputing...
Do you deny that fewer poor people means lower costs for social programs?
Do you deny that fewer poor people means less crime?
Do you deny that fewer people (rich OR poor) means less strain on the environment?
 
If you're against cradle-to-grave socialism, then reducing the birth rate of the poor should be a top priority for you. Who do you think are the main recipients of many social programs?

You mean like..... take money away from mothers on welfare who keep having one baby after another?

Maybe take the kids away after 1?

How do you get the poor to have fewer kids if you pay them more for each one?
 
Seems like you're saying that Justice Ginsberg's first perception was correct--even if she didn't support the rationale.

How many rounds of the eugenics debate must we have before we acknowledge the fundamental and unequivocal evil of the concept?

So are you opposed to birth control as well? We're just wasting our time promoting birth control in Africa, right? Who cares if the population is doubling every generation, causing total environmental and economic collapse? :roll:
 
Lots of former Einsatzgruppen members changed their mind about the Holocuast since WW2, also.

She never said she supported Roe v Wade for that reason in the first place, only that that's what she thought the justification was.
 
So are you opposed to birth control as well? We're just wasting our time promoting birth control in Africa, right? Who cares if the population is doubling every generation, causing total environmental and economic collapse? :roll:

Ain't my problem. Sooner, or later, you have to stand back and let Darwinism take care of the problem.
 
You mean like..... take money away from mothers on welfare who keep having one baby after another?

Maybe take the kids away after 1?

How do you get the poor to have fewer kids if you pay them more for each one?

By allowing them to have abortions. Hence this thread. :doh
 
You are completely missing what I am saying or blatantly misconstruing what I am saying...not sure which.

What I am saying is that the pro-life movement is 100% behind protecting the fetus, however as soon as the fetus becomes a child, they are against doing anything to support the child.
I doubt that you could find one person who feels that way.
 
Ain't my problem. Sooner, or later, you have to stand back and let Darwinism take care of the problem.

I find it funny that you adopt this attitude less than one page after you were so sanctimoniously horrified that Ginsburg would even mention trying to reduce the birth rate among the poor. You're funny. :lol:
 
I doubt that you could find one person who feels that way.

Mpg, meet apdst! It's "not his problem." If people are stupid enough to be born in the wrong country or to the wrong parents, then they deserve to die. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom