+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" (/thread-376939.html)
"populations that we don't want to have too many of" - GGniner - 07-09-2009 03:53 PM
Yeah, this is about Abortion, Eugenics, Liberal Fascism and killing off undeseriables.....so sue me. Enter liberal icon and SCOTUS Judge, Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a rare moment of honesty apparently
Quote:Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
yeah, as self-appointed gods in the tradition of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the rest of the Eugencist...."those populations", can't have too many of 'those'. Whatever could she be talking about I wonder?
Outrage on this from your Media News Pundits who like to influence how you think in......NEVER
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - DrTorch - 07-09-2009 04:01 PM
Can't wait to see how Robert tries to spin this.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - GGniner - 07-09-2009 04:51 PM
![[Image: abortion-kills-black-babies-2.jpg]](http://heavyflowdays.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/abortion-kills-black-babies-2.jpg)
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - uhmump95 - 07-09-2009 05:06 PM
I still find that very hard to believe because in most cases I have seen, blacks do not get abortions.
I have seen underage black pregnancies as early as the 6th grade (no abortions)
I have seen deeply religious black pregnancies after a child as gone off to college (no abortions)
I have seen many unwed black pregnancies (no abortions).
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - smn1256 - 07-09-2009 07:56 PM
(07-09-2009 05:06 PM)uhmump95 Wrote: I still find that very hard to believe because in most cases I have seen, blacks do not get abortions.
I have seen underage black pregnancies as early as the 6th grade (no abortions)
I have seen deeply religious black pregnancies after a child as gone off to college (no abortions)
I have seen many unwed black pregnancies (no abortions).
I'd agree. Wonder why this is?
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - jh - 07-09-2009 09:42 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Interesting read, particularly about the Struck case (Ginsberg defended an Air Force officer who was told that she had to get an abortion or be discharged, two years before Roe v. Wade).
Bad as it sounds, I'm not sure you guys are reading her statement the way she ment it. It seems to me that the bolded statement is her perception of the court at the time. It's her explaining why she believed that the court would strike down the Hyde Amendment, not necessarily expressing her own views (though it is harder to divorce her from the "we" in the statement about the undesirable populations). She says that at the time, she had thought that there was such concern, not that she had such a concern. That's why, in the last line of the response, she says that her perception was wrong after the Hyde Amendment was upheld. I think she's saying that she misread the court, not that she changed her mind.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - egoboss407 - 07-10-2009 12:49 AM
(07-09-2009 07:56 PM)smn1256 Wrote:(07-09-2009 05:06 PM)uhmump95 Wrote: I still find that very hard to believe because in most cases I have seen, blacks do not get abortions.
I have seen underage black pregnancies as early as the 6th grade (no abortions)
I have seen deeply religious black pregnancies after a child as gone off to college (no abortions)
I have seen many unwed black pregnancies (no abortions).
I'd agree. Wonder why this is?
Black people are the most conservative group of people in America, except on this page.
I vote for internet conservatives for "population that we don't want to have too many of".
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - OUBOBCATJOHN - 07-10-2009 01:22 AM
Some blacks are very conservative. Look at the number of black conservatives/Republicans from JC Watts, Lynn Swan, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condi Rice on the national stage. Problem is 90% of blacks are like sheep and vote D because thats what their parents and grandparents did and blacks are taught in public schools to hate the rich and republicans.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - nomad2u2001 - 07-10-2009 02:12 AM
I don't understand where that analysis came from OUBOBCATJOHN. I'm black and have been through our public school system and teachers do NOT ever talk politics. The only teacher that actually came close was my English teacher who told a muslim kid that he is going to hell. Note that I said the word is, not maybe, not possibly, not probably, but IS.
And the same argument could go for most of the people who vote republican. I would say that the good majority of americans vote the way they vote because their family did. It's just the way we are. Very few of us actually go out and find our own salvation and break our beliefs off from our families.
I guess I typed this whole thing to say that you shouldn't call 90% of blacks sheep when you may actually be one yourself.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - uhmump95 - 07-10-2009 10:17 AM
We are only sheep because that is what OUBOBCATJOHN's parent's told him.
Trust me, you can see on this board that there are plenty of sheep that follow the Republican party as well.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - Tripster - 07-10-2009 10:41 AM
(07-10-2009 10:17 AM)uhmump95 Wrote: We are only sheep because that is what OUBOBCATJOHN's parent's told him.
Trust me, you can see on this board that there are plenty of sheep that follow the Republican party as well.
I am afraid you are getting people that are Staunchly Conservative in their views, mixed up as a type of support for the Republican Party.
At this point in time, I can't stand the slimy bastards on either side of the Aisle or the ones hanging on in the Middle.
I support no Party(s).
But since we are STUCK with the Republican Party as the Voice of the Conservative, well it is like Yard Time in a Super Max Prison, you can take it or leave it.
And I have to Vote or I could not stand it.
And I vote for as many Conservative Democrats as I do Conservative anyone else. I vote for Who Can and Will, hopefully, do the Job Right.
.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - I45owl - 07-10-2009 11:18 AM
(07-10-2009 02:12 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: And the same argument could go for most of the people who vote republican. I would say that the good majority of americans vote the way they vote because their family did. It's just the way we are. Very few of us actually go out and find our own salvation and break our beliefs off from our families.
I guess I typed this whole thing to say that you shouldn't call 90% of blacks sheep when you may actually be one yourself.
And then there are those of us that have to learn to keep our mouths shut around our parents when the subject of religion or politics come up for fear of giving them a heart attack.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - nomad2u2001 - 07-10-2009 12:11 PM
I know what you're saying, I don't really talk politics around my parents because we slightly differ. My father doesn't really follow politics and always votes straight ticket D. While I do like the democratic party for the POTUS position, I do understand the importance of checks and balances and will never vote straight ticket. I seem to like Republicans on the state level though and that usually gets my father mad, except for this time because Bev Perdue doesn't seem to be doing a great job and he commends me on voting McCrory.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - GGniner - 07-14-2009 11:46 AM
LA times article today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg14-2009jul14,0,4640584.column?track=rss
Quote:Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe vs. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations…
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible.
“[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. … Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.”
Eugenics, what an ugly and evil history it has. Now that Fascism is back and all...
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - Fo Shizzle - 07-14-2009 01:20 PM
(07-10-2009 10:17 AM)uhmump95 Wrote: We are only sheep because that is what OUBOBCATJOHN's parent's told him.
Trust me, you can see on this board that there are plenty of sheep that follow the Republican party as well.
Ya think?
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - Fo Shizzle - 07-14-2009 01:27 PM
(07-10-2009 11:18 AM)I45owl Wrote:(07-10-2009 02:12 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: And the same argument could go for most of the people who vote republican. I would say that the good majority of americans vote the way they vote because their family did. It's just the way we are. Very few of us actually go out and find our own salvation and break our beliefs off from our families.
I guess I typed this whole thing to say that you shouldn't call 90% of blacks sheep when you may actually be one yourself.
And then there are those of us that have to learn to keep our mouths shut around our parents when the subject of religion or politics come up for fear of giving them a heart attack.
I don't...I give my dad a damn fit. He is as close to a neocon as one could get. People like him are so easily offended at the smallest suggestion that somehow the things that they have believed their whole lives might not be so cut and dried and there could be an opposing viewpoint that has validity....It takes me less than a minute to piss him off.... I should stop though since he is 78.
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - EastStang - 07-14-2009 01:44 PM
When human life becomes cheap, any horror is possible. Forced abortions and sterilizations become so easy. If Barak Obama had been conceived after Roe vs. Wade, would he have been carried to term?
RE: "populations that we don't want to have too many of" - Paul M - 07-14-2009 03:10 PM
(07-14-2009 01:44 PM)EastStang Wrote: When human life becomes cheap, any horror is possible. Forced abortions and sterilizations become so easy. If Barak Obama had been conceived after Roe vs. Wade, would he have been carried to term?
Probably not.