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

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

DarkWizard12 said:
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. :roll:

DarkWizard12 said:
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.

DarkWizard12 said:
Ok, not allowing fetuses to become children and to become adults. Does that make you feel better about the situation?

Yes?

DarkWizard12 said:
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.

DarkWizard12 said:
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.

apdst · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

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.

The effectiveness of social programs is not the topic of this thread.

TheNextEra · Jul 10, 2009

apdst said:
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.

Renae · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

celticlord · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
The effectiveness of social programs is not the topic of this thread.

It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.

Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.

(Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)

Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.

Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

MrVicchio said:
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.

What in God's name are you babbling about?

Give them crumbs to survive? I believe in a strong social safety net. And where the hell did I say anything about them killing themselves off otherwise? If you're referring to the "let Darwinism take care of the problem" comment, that was apdst. Not me.

DarkWizard12 · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
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. :roll:

Your kidding right? That's like wondering how stealing silver forks from your neighbor's house detracts from the value of your neighbor's silverware.

Having kids that you (or society) can't afford is undesirable.

What do you mean "Afford"? in caveman days, did people not need money to raise children?

Or better yet, why do you care? Just because you support anti-poverty and children-programs, that somehow gives you the right to judge which kids are worthy and which are "undesirable" before even out of the womb?

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.

You have no way of knowing which will drain resources either. You can't, and shouldn't, be able to do anything untill you somehow invent a technology that can "pinpoint" which fetuses will become criminals, and which ones will be relative successes. Untill then, you should just assume that every fetus is "innocent" from becoming "undesirable".

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.

And your willing to support the killing of babies to do that?

DarkWizard12 · Jul 10, 2009

celticlord said:
It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.

Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.

(Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)

Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.

Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.

I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

celticlord said:
It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.

No I have not. I suggested that helping poor people prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies will result in a reduction in the cost to society of the child. I am not arguing about the effectiveness or the morality of the social programs themselves; that's a topic for another thread. But surely you would concede that the programs do exist? And that their main beneficiaries are the poor?

celticlord said:
Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.

I agree.

celticlord said:
(Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)

Many countries HAVE pursued effective social programs, thus blowing a hole in your theory.

celticlord said:
Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.

Just because you are unwilling to consider the economic aspect of this doesn't mean that there is no economic aspect of it.

celticlord said:
Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.

So if favoring sensible cost control strategies for social programs means that I hate the poor, what does that make the people who want to eliminate the programs altogether?

celticlord · Jul 10, 2009

DarkWizard12 said:
I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?

Horribly...just ask a certain James T Kirk:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MKJ4xJVsI&feature=related"]YouTube - Captain Kirk losing it[/ame]

(Yeah, I know, I really shouldn't admit such things, but talk of eugenics always brings out my inner Trekkie! :mrgreen

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

DarkWizard12 said:
Your kidding right? That's like wondering how stealing silver forks from your neighbor's house detracts from the value of your neighbor's silverware.

That is a ridiculous comparison. If abortion is legal and contraception is available, some people will choose to have babies. Some people will choose not to. :roll:

DarkWizard12 said:
What do you mean "Afford"? in caveman days, did people not need money to raise children?

No they did not. But now they do. What's your point?

DarkWizard12 said:
Or better yet, why do you care? Just because you support anti-poverty and children-programs, that somehow gives you the right to judge which kids are worthy and which are "undesirable" before even out of the womb?

If I was advocating some kind of coercive method, you might have a point. But I'm not, so you don't.

DarkWizard12 said:
You have no way of knowing which will drain resources either. You can't, and shouldn't, be able to do anything untill you somehow invent a technology that can "pinpoint" which fetuses will become criminals, and which ones will be relative successes. Untill then, you should just assume that every fetus is "innocent" from becoming "undesirable".

It makes sense to encourage the poor to limit the number of children they have. I fail to see why this point is so controversial...ESPECIALLY from someone who bitches about the evil liberals stealing his money to pay for social programs.

DarkWizard12 said:
And your willing to support the killing of babies to do that?

Show me where I've ever advocated violence toward anyone in this thread.

celticlord · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
No I have not. I suggested that helping poor people prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies will result in a reduction in the cost to society of the child. I am not arguing about the effectiveness or the morality of the social programs themselves; that's a topic for another thread. But surely you would concede that the programs do exist? And that their main beneficiaries are the poor?

Children are not costs, not to their parents nor to society. This is the point you refuse to see.

Kandahar said:
Many countries HAVE pursued effective social programs, thus blowing a hole in your theory.

With every economy in the G20 contracting and experiencing declines in tax revenue, the indebtedness such programs represent demonstrates the laughable nature of your statement. No, the programs are not effective.

Kandahar said:
Just because you are unwilling to consider the economic aspect of this doesn't mean that there is no economic aspect of it.

Straw man. There economic aspects in every aspect of society. That does not make economic considerations of necessity the arbiter of morals.

Kandahar said:
So if favoring sensible cost control strategies for social programs means that I hate the poor, what does that make the people who want to eliminate the programs altogether?

Charitable, caring, and compassionate people who recognize that elevating poor people begins by ending the perpetual dependency that is the legacy of the welfare state.

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

celticlord said:
Children are not costs, not to their parents nor to society. This is the point you refuse to see.

Children, especially poor children, have many costs to both their parents and society. If you are denying even that most basic premise, when what you are saying flies right in the face of practically everything you frequently complain about in terms of social programs, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

celticlord said:
With every economy in the G20 contracting and experiencing declines in tax revenue, the indebtedness such programs represent demonstrates the laughable nature of your statement. No, the programs are not effective.

Temporary economic problems aside, the programs in many countries are effective at reducing or eliminating poverty, which is what we were talking about.

celticlord said:
Straw man. There economic aspects in every aspect of society. That does not make economic considerations of necessity the arbiter of morals.

Nor does it mean you can just ignore the economics unless you have some compelling moral reason for doing so. And you do not. So far you haven't offered up any rational argument against encouraging the poor to have fewer children.

celticlord said:
Charitable, caring, and compassionate people who recognize that elevating poor people begins by ending the perpetual dependency that is the legacy of the welfare state.

OK. And how exactly does that conflict with reducing the costs of the welfare state, and therefore the size of government?

Kandahar · Jul 10, 2009

DarkWizard12 said:
I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?

I haven't advocated any murders, compulsory sterilizations, or forced abortions. Don't be such a drama queen.

celticlord · Jul 10, 2009

Kandahar said:
Children, especially poor children, have many costs to both their parents and society. If you are denying even that most basic premise, when what you are saying flies right in the face of practically everything you frequently complain about in terms of social programs, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

I agree that further discussion with you is futile. Your position is disgusting, despicable, and contemptible. Parents do expend money, time, and emotion on their children--but that does not make children "costs". Children are not a burden that drags the parent down. Children are not a blight upon society. CHILDREN ARE NOT A "COST".

Period. End of Sentence. End of Discussion.

TheNextEra · Jul 11, 2009

celticlord said:
Children are not a burden that drags the parent down. Children are not a blight upon society. CHILDREN ARE NOT A "COST".

Period. End of Sentence. End of Discussion.

And yet many conservatives would rather children DIE on the street rather than give social programs that can benefit them. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. END OF DISCUSSION. That is what it means to get rid of social programs, letting children suffer.

Renae · Jul 11, 2009

TheNextEra said:
And yet many conservatives would rather children DIE on the street rather than give social programs that can benefit them. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. END OF DISCUSSION. That is what it means to get rid of social programs, letting children suffer.

OH PLEASE TNE. Name one Conservative that wants "children dying in the streets".

name one policy or plan we back that would result in this.

You're such a blow-hard fearmonger.

satandog · Jul 11, 2009

celticlord said:
I agree that further discussion with you is futile. Your position is disgusting, despicable, and contemptible. Parents do expend money, time, and emotion on their children--but that does not make children "costs". Children are not a burden that drags the parent down. Children are not a blight upon society. CHILDREN ARE NOT A "COST".

Period. End of Sentence. End of Discussion.

How do you define cost?

cost - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry:
1cost
Pronunciation:
\ˈkȯst\
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 a: the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : price b: the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object
2: loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something
3plural : expenses incurred in litigation ; especially : those given by the law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party

Below are references to cost calculators that estimate the cost to raise a child in the United States.

Trying to Conceive: How Much it Costs to Raise a Child
Expenditures on Children by Families, 2007
USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation.

I think that I understand what you are saying - children are not a negative cost, they add more value to society then is expended is raising them - though from a purely monetary perspective, it seems reasonable to believe that many parents in the United States will not see a monetary return on the money invested in their children.

Renae · Jul 11, 2009

Kandahar said:
What in God's name are you babbling about?

Give them crumbs to survive? I believe in a strong social safety net.

A strong safety net merely perpetuates poverty. People born into a system that tells them they only survive by the "goodness" of others, tend to stagnate. People given incentive, and told "Hey go out there, make something of yourselves" have incentive to improve themselves.

This is shown true by the failure of the war on poverty, the abject failure of communist governments and socialist states.

Why has America been the greatest engine of prosperity? It sure as hell wasn't because of "safety nets" that people never rose above.

Kandahar said:
And where the hell did I say anything about them killing themselves off otherwise? If you're referring to the "let Darwinism take care of the problem" comment, that was apdst. Not me.

I was referring to your backing of abortion.

celticlord · Jul 11, 2009

TheNextEra said:
And yet many conservatives would rather children DIE on the street rather than give social programs that can benefit them. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. END OF DISCUSSION. That is what it means to get rid of social programs, letting children suffer.

Children did not "die on the street" before social programs, nor do intelligent people--i.e., those who grasp that the welfare state is nothing more than a lie meant to oppress and demean the non-entitled few--advocate children dying anywhere.

Intelligent people grasp the limitations of government--that while government may clumsily safeguard the rights of men, it cannot provide for men, nor for their families.

Intelligent people grasp that to dilute the imperative for self sufficiency is to inculcate a soul-killing dependency into the individuals that comprise a society.

Your statement is false. Your position is false. Your anger is false.

Kandahar · Jul 11, 2009

MrVicchio said:
OH PLEASE TNE. Name one Conservative that wants "children dying in the streets".

name one policy or plan we back that would result in this.

Cutting social programs that prevent poverty, while doing nothing to encourage the poor to have fewer children.

Renae · Jul 11, 2009

Kandahar said:
Cutting social programs that prevent poverty, while doing nothing to encourage the poor to have fewer children.

Wait..

So you think it's governments job to not only regulate how people should behave, but to support their choice to remain poor?

I.E. "Have children, don't worry, we'll support you!"

How do you come to the conclusion that these programs "prevent poverty?"

I postulate they ENCOURAGE poverty, by reducing the incentive to achieve. Why work hard when you can get a check cut for you? Why bother to care for yourself when others will do it for you. IT's a disease of guilt, that is all "anti-poverty" programs ever end up being.

Do you really believe, in a society as prosperous, and successful as ours, that spending trillions of dollars with NO CHANGE in poverty rates means we merely prevented poverty?

Really?

No, you have it all backwards. We ensure poverty by coddling people, we ensure mediocrity when it's rewarded.

I'm a "sink or swim" kinda guy that realizes most people, will figure out how to swim. Safety nets should be there to prop up and teach people how to swim, not provide them with life vets to tread water all their lives.

Kandahar · Jul 11, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Wait..

So you think it's governments job to not only regulate how people should behave, but to support their choice to remain poor?

I.E. "Have children, don't worry, we'll support you!"

Is it the child's fault if the parent is irresponsible?

MrVicchio said:
How do you come to the conclusion that these programs "prevent poverty?"

I use the term anti-poverty social programs fairly broadly.

Public education prevents poverty by providing people with at least some education, as well as the potential to excel. Law enforcement and prisons prevent poverty by taking thugs off the streets that make businesses think twice before opening in poor neighborhoods. Universal health care will prevent poverty by ensuring that people don't go bankrupt after only one illness/accident, or die because they can't afford treatment. Unemployment insurance prevents poverty by ensuring that people don't miss their rent payment and end up on the street after being unexpectedly laid off work. Etc, etc.

Not all anti-poverty programs involve collecting a welfare check. IMO these things qualify as well. Since the United States has one of the highest levels of poverty and the smallest social safety net in the developed world, it seems unlikely that such programs actively encourage poverty.

MrVicchio said:
Do you really believe, in a society as prosperous, and successful as ours, that spending trillions of dollars with NO CHANGE in poverty rates means we merely prevented poverty?

No change compared to when?

MrVicchio said:
I'm a "sink or swim" kinda guy that realizes most people, will figure out how to swim. Safety nets should be there to prop up and teach people how to swim, not provide them with life vets to tread water all their lives.

I agree. And what better way to teach people how to swim than by encouraging them to have fewer children they can't afford, instead of providing them with life vests to pay for all the associated expenses?

Renae · Jul 11, 2009

Kandahar said:
There are more anti-poverty programs than the ones that you associate with black people

We're through until you apologize for attempting to cast me as a bigot. I never once brought race into this, and I don't appreciate you attempting to spin my comments as being about any race.

That sir, was low down dirty pool.

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

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Sir Poop A lot

Sir Poop A lot

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant