• 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

Kandahar said:
So you don't see any benefit to encouraging the poor to have fewer children, in a way that is not coercive and doesn't cost the taxpayers anything?
Click to expand...
let me make this clear: NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when it comes to children, the government should be: Hands. Off. I think the parents should decide if they want more or less children WITHOUT ANY encouragement by "elitests" who think they know better about how many children one family should have.
This kind of **** is exactly why there is a perception that some conservatives stop caring about the kid the moment he comes out of the womb. Yes, it's nothing more than "liberal elitism" to want to live in a society with less crime, a better environment, and a lesser need for government spending...all while helping the poor people in question better themselves financially without coercing them to do anything. :doh
Click to expand...
Oh yes, if only we killed more children, all our problems would go away. :roll:

CHILDREN are not these little "robotic entities" that as soon as they are born, their future is predetermined by how rich or poor their parents are. What if one kid turns out to be the next Stephen Hawking? The next FDR? And perhaps go on to solve a problem or 2 in our world?

All I can hope for is that this elitism will follow natural selection and die with it's own ideaology of "pro-abortion".
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...
Perhaps that he's proposing to resolve issues of poverty through education and elevation rather than extermination?

Your argument reduces to this: poor people are a burden, so we must eliminate poor people. Sustaining poor people's lives is troublesome, so we must end those lives.

That you fail to see the moral repugnance of that argument is rather disappointing, although I won't say it is surprising.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kandahar:

It's mr vicchio, one of the most hackiest far-rights around here.

Why would he bother to see the quote in it's proper context. Why would be bother really comment on the piece from CSN 'news'.?

He just post these ridiculous op-ed pieces as evidence of something only he sees and he believes.

He doesn't care a lick about what justice Ginsberg actually said or what she obviously meant -- he thrives on 'out of context' bashing of all things left.
 
Oftencold said:
Let us know if that ever happens, m'kay?
Click to expand...

It already has happened.

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago.
Abstract
"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."[3]
Click to expand...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
let me make this clear: NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So you're going to personally pay all of society's costs associated with the extra poor kids?

DarkWizard12 said:
when it comes to children, the government should be: Hands. Off. I think the parents should decide if they want more or less children WITHOUT ANY encouragement by "elitests" who think they know better about how many children one family should have.
Click to expand...

Legalized abortion is only "encouragement" in the sense that it leaves people alone to do what they want to do anyway.

DarkWizard12 said:
Oh yes, if only we killed more children, all our problems would go away. :roll:
Click to expand...

I do not agree that abortion is killing children. Next?

DarkWizard12 said:
CHILDREN are not these little "robotic entities" that as soon as they are born, their future is predetermined by how rich or poor their parents are. What if one kid turns out to be the next Stephen Hawking? The next FDR? And perhaps go on to solve a problem or 2 in our world?
Click to expand...

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.

DarkWizard12 said:
All I can hope for is that this elitism will follow natural selection and die with it's own ideaology of "pro-abortion".
Click to expand...

If you're willing to shoulder all the costs associated with more poor kids in the world, be my guest. Otherwise, quit your bitching.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Perhaps that he's proposing to resolve issues of poverty through education and elevation rather than extermination?
Click to expand...

My way is more cost-effective and more certain. And I highly doubt he's talking about education for the poor anyway.

celticlord said:
Your argument reduces to this: poor people are a burden, so we must eliminate poor people. Sustaining poor people's lives is troublesome, so we must end those lives.

That you fail to see the moral repugnance of that argument is rather disappointing, although I won't say it is surprising.
Click to expand...

Except I'm not talking about killing poor people who already exist, I'm talking about preventing more of them from existing in the first place, without any coercion of anyone. What exactly is morally repugnant about this?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
My way is more cost-effective and more certain...

....
Click to expand...
So you would also advocate sterilizing poor people? That would be even more cost effective.

.
 
TOJ said:
So you would also advocate sterilizing poor people? That would be even more cost effective.

.
Click to expand...

As long as they consent to it, sure. I'm in favor of universal health care for everyone.
 
Kandahar said:
As long as they consent to it, sure. I'm in favor of universal health care for everyone.
Click to expand...
How about paying them to be sterilized or have abortions? That could go a long way toward helping to contain costs.

.
 
TOJ said:
How about paying them to be sterilized or have abortions? That could go a long way toward helping to contain costs.
Click to expand...

How? Wouldn't that mean more money being spent?
 
TOJ said:
How about paying them to be sterilized or have abortions? That could go a long way toward helping to contain costs.

.
Click to expand...

The political uproar over that would just be a lot more trouble than it was worth.

From an economic perspective, I guess the cost-effectiveness of that would come down to how much people were being paid. This is just a guess and I don't have any evidence to support this, but I would think that the amount the government would have to pay to get people to actually do it would be more than the public costs of the kid, so it would not be cost-effective.

Paid abortion would cause an especially big political stink, but sterilization would probably pose a lot more long-term problems. If the government paid people to get sterilized, I think we might face the kind of demographic problems that China is facing, albeit on a smaller scale.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Kandahar:

It's mr vicchio, one of the most hackiest far-rights around here.

Why would he bother to see the quote in it's proper context. Why would be bother really comment on the piece from CSN 'news'.?

He just post these ridiculous op-ed pieces as evidence of something only he sees and he believes.

He doesn't care a lick about what justice Ginsberg actually said or what she obviously meant -- he thrives on 'out of context' bashing of all things left.
Click to expand...
I'm not a far right hack, I just don't back down in the face of liberal progressives. I reject your "Government first" mentality, and I do so unabashedly.

Can you please show where I took her "out of context"? She stated that she believed the jsutification was ridding society of undesirables. Do you deny this?
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm in favor of not being robbed to empower poverty.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't have a problem with this. If there are fewer poor people born, it means you'll be "robbed to empower poverty" a lot less.
 
The Mark said:
How? Wouldn't that mean more money being spent?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the payment, $1000 would probably do it for many, and the cost of the procedure would not be anywhere near as much as paying for the birth and care of the kids they might have.

Kandi is all about cost containment so I was just wondering what he thought about a little investment for the long term.

.
 
Kandahar said:
Then you shouldn't have a problem with this. If there are fewer poor people born, it means you'll be "robbed to empower poverty" a lot less.
Click to expand...

I have a huge problem with killing people to remove them from "the burden of life". I am not a Nazi.

Killing is as repugnant as creating slaves to the system. Both are inherently EVIL.

I believe all humans, have the ability, and should be given the chance to succeed, the best way to do that, is not to chain them down. Get out of the way and let freedom roll.

Welfare is nothing more then a chain around the necks of people.
 
MrVicchio said:
I have a huge problem with killing people to remove them from "the burden of life". I am not a Nazi.

Killing is as repugnant as creating slaves to the system. Both are inherently EVIL.
Click to expand...

Except, once again, I'm not talking about killing poor people. I'm talking about preventing so many of them from being born in the first place.

MrVicchio said:
I believe all humans, have the ability, and should be given the chance to succeed, the best way to do that, is not to chain them down. Get out of the way and let freedom roll.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm advocating. I haven't proposed a single measure to coerce the poor into giving up their reproductive freedom. All I've suggested is continuing to allow them to have abortions, and making sure everyone has access to sex education and contraception.

MrVicchio said:
Welfare is nothing more then a chain around the necks of people.
Click to expand...

Then once again, you should support this. It'll make the chain around your neck that much smaller. What part of that is difficult to understand? If people devoted half the energy to cost control that they devote to bitching about anti-poverty programs, we'd have much less government spending.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Except, once again, I'm not talking about killing poor people. I'm talking about preventing so many of them from being born in the first place.
Click to expand...
Why not prevent rich people from being born instead, creating space in the upper economic castes into which poor people might rise?
 
celticlord said:
Why not prevent rich people from being born instead, creating space in the upper economic castes into which poor people might rise?
Click to expand...

Because that is simply not how economics works. Our economy is not a zero-sum game where you can just "create space into which the poor might rise." Mao Tse-Tung already tried that approach...although he didn't have any qualms about flat-out murdering the bourgeoisie.

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.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Kandahar said:
So you're going to personally pay all of society's costs associated with the extra poor kids?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

celticlord said:
A most schizophrenic philosophy you have there. So what is it about poor people that you resent them so much?
Click to expand...

Who says I resent them? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom