Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

[IPSecure]

Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?), came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

[Young Paleocon]

Didn't know Ginsy was a Nazi....

http://208.106.191.145/_media/imgs/articles/a55_euthanasia.jpg

[gls]

Not surprising. Just look at the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. In 1939 Margaret Sanger started “The Negro Project”. She enlisted black preachers to support sterilization. The plan was shown in a letter to Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble Empire,


We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.[20][21]

[TurtleBurger]

Too bad she's so old and sickly, that could be an impeachable comment.

[Liberty Star]

That's incredible. She may be impeached if she really said that.

[RSLudlum]

Notable quotes:

"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..."
Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.

"Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics."
- John Maynard Keynes. Eugenics Review. 1946


“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
- The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60


more here: http://jonesreport.com/article/09_08/05eugenics.html

[Sean]

Not a surprise this has been known for quite awhile by anyone that knows the history of the issue. The NAZI's really got a lot of their ideas from us on eliminating undesirables.

[Bossobass]

Isn't the pat answer to those who oppose abortion to ask the question: "What about in the cases of incest and rape?"

Isn't that what Roe v Wade was about?

Bosso

[ChaosControl]

Such thoughts are probably common among the authoritarian mind.
Soon such words will be common too as they grow more power and people continue to remain good little apathetic sheep.

[acptulsa]

Nice illustration of the 'humanitarian empathy' of modern liberalism. They only want to micromanage your life because they care about you? I'd say she did the mythbusting on that one, and did it well.

[klamath]

It took her until she was feeble and sick to slip up and admit abortion had nothing to do with women's rights, but more to do with a liberal agenda to manipulate and control population.

[Cowlesy]

Boy she's a real treat, isn't she?

[Pepsi]

I bet she would rule that a One-Child Policy is legal under the Constitution in a heart beat.

We all should send strongly worded letters to Congress to get her Impeach and remove .

[Freedom 4 all]

WOW, that's utterly amazing. I can't believe she actually dared to say that out loud.

[klamath]

I bet she would rule that a One-Child Policy is legal under the Constitution in a heart beat.

We all should send strongly worded letters to Congress to get her Impeach and remove .

Unfortunately Obama would appoint someone as bad and there isn't a damned thing the few republicans left in the senate could do about it.

[tmosley]

Any hamfisted attempt at eugenics is destined to fail, because determining who gets to breed by social norms halts all change, or only allows for neutral or beneficial single base pair changes. By "allowing" those who are genetically "inferior" to reproduce, you create a much greater opportunity for nature to create a highly superior set of offspring via double, triple, or even quadruple base pair changes, even if each those changes have some minor failing points individually.

Basically, you want to have the highest amount of genetic diversity possible. When there is some highly selective event, like a major disease outbreak (think Black Plague), nuclear winter, or economic collapse, then the society has a greater chance of surviving. If a culture has practiced eugenics for several generations, all of the children are going to be similar, and all will be wiped out when the wrong virus comes along, or a set of circumstances favors those who think individually (remind you of a group of people that you know?).

In the end, eugenics is about as successful as socialism. It is always doomed to fail, while its proponents will always say that they just needed to do more to make it succeed.

That said, Roe v Wade was really a positive ruling (flame me all you want, but I think that a person has a right to do whatever they want to their own body, and until a child is born, it is part of the woman's body), as those effected by it would have gotten abortions anyways, but this allowed them to do it in a doctors office rather than in a back alley with a coat hanger. It allowed people to make more choices for themselves, rather than having the state impose choices on often innocent women (preventing lots of rape babies and products of incest from being born).

[SovereignMN]

That said, Roe v Wade was really a positive ruling (flame me all you want, but I think that a person has a right to do whatever they want to their own body, and until a child is born, it is part of the woman's body), as those effected by it would have gotten abortions anyways, but this allowed them to do it in a doctors office rather than in a back alley with a coat hanger. It allowed people to make more choices for themselves, rather than having the state impose choices on often innocent women (preventing lots of rape babies and products of incest from being born).

A baby continues to depend on their parents well after they are born. Is it justifiable for a parent to starve their newborn?

[PaulaGem]

A baby continues to depend on their parents well after they are born. Is it justifiable for a parent to starve their newborn?

I'll probably get stoned for this - but I wish there were some way to keep people who aren't going to take care of their kids from having them. If abortion helps in this aspect (and I believe it does) it is a good thing.

This really isn't eugenics. It's just a crying shame that there are so many suffering kids out there.

[Dan Chisholm]

I'll probably get stoned for this - but I wish there were some way to keep people who aren't going to take care of their kids from having them. If abortion helps in this aspect (and I believe it does) it is a good thing.

This really isn't eugenics. It's just a crying shame that there are so many suffering kids out there.

I'm sure we can all agree that reducing the suffering of children is a good thing, but at the cost of depriving them of their lives is a travesty.

Roe vs. Wade has been one of the most terrible rulings by the Supreme Court in American History and it needs to be repealed for many reasons. Why does the government have a right to make this law anyhow? Shouldn't this be left up to the states?

[klamath]

I'll probably get stoned for this - but I wish there were some way to keep people who aren't going to take care of their kids from having them. If abortion helps in this aspect (and I believe it does) it is a good thing.

This really isn't eugenics. It's just a crying shame that there are so many suffering kids out there.

If you have ever been to the middle east in the summer you know how the people are suffering. We need to step up our efforts to put them out of their misery.:rolleyes:

[Krugerrand]

Folks ... let's keep this focused on Ginsburg and what she said. We can start a hot topic thread for generic discuss on abortion.

[acptulsa]

"Undesirables". Surely this clip could be juxtaposed with some Nazi footage or posters where that euphamism is used. Should we Godwinize her?

[pcosmar]

Notable quotes:



And a few more.
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

From the Founder of Planed Parenthood.

Those that do not remember History are doomed to repeat it

[Pepsi]

Unfortunately Obama would appoint someone as bad and there isn't a damned thing the few republicans left in the senate could do about it.

yes but making a stink about it is better than sitting one's butt and ranting and scraming at the computer about it

[dannno]

That's incredible. She may be impeached if she really said that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1

[dannno]

Ok, so in context that quote doesn't really brand Ginsburg as a eugenisist, she just says that was the view prevalent at the time... however, can you picture a politician reasonably using that argument today to promote abortion? I don't think so. People would question their motivations, and who is it exactly that is undesirable? It seems to be that the eugenics attitude was much more prevalent during the early and middle part of the century, as those who have seen Alex Jones' EndGame know, and this attitude has trailed off for the most part. During the 90s everybody decided to be tolerant of everybody. Now abortion, at least publicly, is all about women's choice.

[pcosmar]

Ok, so in context that quote doesn't really brand Ginsburg as a eugenisist, she just says that was the view prevalent at the time... however, can you picture a politician reasonably using that argument today to promote abortion? I don't think so. People would question their motivations, and who is it exactly that is undesirable? It seems to be that the eugenics attitude was much more prevalent during the early and middle part of the century, as those who have seen Alex Jones' EndGame know, and this attitude has trailed off for the most part. During the 90s everybody decided to be tolerant of everybody. Now abortion, at least publicly, is all about women's choice.

Semantics
Because they change the wording, and alter the public image, does not change the purpose. :(

[dannno]

Semantics
Because they change the wording, and alter the public image, does not change the purpose. :(

No, I think the fact that the attitude was prevelent at the time is pretty sickening regardless if a particular supreme court justice thought so or not. The fact that it was presented to a supreme court justice in that manner is awful.


Here are a couple of really interesting articles on eugenics.



Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany
By David Morgan, Reuters, [15 February 2000]

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/302.html




Eugenics and the Nazis—the California connection (excerpt)
By Edwin Black, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday 9 November 2003 Page D–1

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a so-called Master Race.

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/299.html

[jkr]

glad im not one of THOSE PEOPLE, phew!

[Brian4Liberty]

Basically, you want to have the highest amount of genetic diversity possible. When there is some highly selective event, like a major disease outbreak (think Black Plague), nuclear winter, or economic collapse, then the society has a greater chance of surviving.

+1

[Brian4Liberty]

Not a surprise. Darth Bader is pretty easy to figure out. Her opinions always take into account the Palestinian angle. Ever wonder why she backed illegal Eminent Domain?

[tmosley]

A baby continues to depend on their parents well after they are born. Is it justifiable for a parent to starve their newborn?

That is both wrong and a non-sequitur. While the child is in the womb, the mother has no options. During that time, it is a parasite (generally a welcome and loved parasite, but a parasite non-the-less). Take the example of conjoined twins. Should one or both twins be forced to carry around the other forever? Each twin has a sovereign right to their body, therefore separation surgery should be allowed, even if it risks the life one or both twins.

You comment was a non-sequitur because once the child is born, anyone can take care of it, and it isn't harming anyone by its existence (as opposed to its parasitic nature while in the womb). Adoption is a doable option, as is abandonment.

Here's an ethical question for you: if you had a parasitic twin living inside of you, would you cut it out, knowing you were condemning it to death? If no, what if it was killing you (crushing an organ, for instance). There are many cases where pregnancies can be deadly to the mother, would you sentence her to death for the sake of the child? What if the child's brain hadn't developed? What if the child's brain had only HALF developed?

Here's another question for you. What if the government instituted a forced pregnancy program? Would it be acceptable for "mothers" under such a program to terminate their pregnancies? What if the children weren't strictly human, but supersoldiers, or some other abomination dreamed up by some government nazi scientist?

I am of the opinion that a host can't murder a parasite. If a woman kills her unborn child, that is her right. If someone else kills the child without her consent, then and only THEN is it murder.

[idirtify]

If you want to impeach Ginsburg, impeach her for her words and intentions AND for being stupid. But definitely do not impeach her for her ruling that protected Abortion (and Planned Parenthood and Birth Control – “APPBC”); because those things have the opposite effect from eugenics. Since APPBC does the opposite, it is certainly not a tool of eugenics! Good grief, it reverses natural selection! Combined with state welfare and high medical costs (via gov regulation), APPBC is very efficient at devolving our species into a less intelligent and less healthy one. APPBC resembles selective breeding but in a reverse and unintentional way. Here’s how: Since the more prosperous / educated / healthy / intelligent people are more likely to afford/choose APPBC and reproduce less, then the less prosperous / educated / healthy / intelligent people are more likely to reproduce more. Now simply multiply that effect at a geometric rate, and go rent the movie Idiocracy. Until the state decides to eliminate welfare and get out of the medical and pharmaceutical industries (and/or provides free APPBC), the fattening and dumming effect on our species will continue to accelerate. So much for APPBC being a method of eugenics! HA!

To those in this thread who try to claim that Roe is related in any way to eugenics: come on! This is not rocket science. It’s simple reproductive math. APPBC is as far from eugenics and the IRS is from a “service”. Or maybe my plea is futile, and maybe the fact that nobody has yet pointed this out is actually evidence of the above-said reversal – since APPBC technology has been available for at least a couple of generations. (Imagining a brand new version of INVASION OF BODY SNATCHERS.)

[idirtify]

That is both wrong and a non-sequitur. While the child is in the womb, the mother has no options. During that time, it is a parasite (generally a welcome and loved parasite, but a parasite non-the-less). Take the example of conjoined twins. Should one or both twins be forced to carry around the other forever? Each twin has a sovereign right to their body, therefore separation surgery should be allowed, even if it risks the life one or both twins.

You comment was a non-sequitur because once the child is born, anyone can take care of it, and it isn't harming anyone by its existence (as opposed to its parasitic nature while in the womb). Adoption is a doable option, as is abandonment.

Here's an ethical question for you: if you had a parasitic twin living inside of you, would you cut it out, knowing you were condemning it to death? If no, what if it was killing you (crushing an organ, for instance). There are many cases where pregnancies can be deadly to the mother, would you sentence her to death for the sake of the child? What if the child's brain hadn't developed? What if the child's brain had only HALF developed?

Here's another question for you. What if the government instituted a forced pregnancy program? Would it be acceptable for "mothers" under such a program to terminate their pregnancies? What if the children weren't strictly human, but supersoldiers, or some other abomination dreamed up by some government nazi scientist?

I am of the opinion that a host can't murder a parasite. If a woman kills her unborn child, that is her right. If someone else kills the child without her consent, then and only THEN is it murder.

Tmosley,

Very good points! Very good analogies! Let me try to improve one. Say your conjoined twin was less able to walk, talk, think, speak, eat, act, etc than you. Although it was growing and learning slowly, it was less of an independently-functioning being. Here’s a better question: Who would more qualify as an individual with rights of personhood, and who would less qualify. IOW, whose rights would be subject to whose? IOW, who would be considered the “person” and who would be considered the "parasite"? I think the answer is obvious. When two bodies with different values occupy the same space, it is physically impossible for both to have personhood; and impossible for the more dependant one to have rights that supersede the more independent one. Therefore it is impossible for the more independent one to violate the “rights” of the more dependant one (that resides in the same body).

[jmdrake]

Ok, so in context that quote doesn't really brand Ginsburg as a eugenisist, she just says that was the view prevalent at the time... however, can you picture a politician reasonably using that argument today to promote abortion? I don't think so. People would question their motivations, and who is it exactly that is undesirable? It seems to be that the eugenics attitude was much more prevalent during the early and middle part of the century, as those who have seen Alex Jones' EndGame know, and this attitude has trailed off for the most part. During the 90s everybody decided to be tolerant of everybody. Now abortion, at least publicly, is all about women's choice.

Well you got a different take from Endgame than I got. The impression I got was that the eugenics movement is accelerating and not "trailing off". Also when Roe v. Wade was pushed through and then heralded it was supposedly "all about women's choice".

[idiom]

A baby continues to depend on their parents well after they are born. Is it justifiable for a parent to starve their newborn?

Rothbard Says:


The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, [once the child is beyond a certain age] and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

[literatim]

That is both wrong and a non-sequitur. While the child is in the womb, the mother has no options. During that time, it is a parasite (generally a welcome and loved parasite, but a parasite non-the-less). Take the example of conjoined twins. Should one or both twins be forced to carry around the other forever? Each twin has a sovereign right to their body, therefore separation surgery should be allowed, even if it risks the life one or both twins.

You comment was a non-sequitur because once the child is born, anyone can take care of it, and it isn't harming anyone by its existence (as opposed to its parasitic nature while in the womb). Adoption is a doable option, as is abandonment.

Here's an ethical question for you: if you had a parasitic twin living inside of you, would you cut it out, knowing you were condemning it to death? If no, what if it was killing you (crushing an organ, for instance). There are many cases where pregnancies can be deadly to the mother, would you sentence her to death for the sake of the child? What if the child's brain hadn't developed? What if the child's brain had only HALF developed?

Here's another question for you. What if the government instituted a forced pregnancy program? Would it be acceptable for "mothers" under such a program to terminate their pregnancies? What if the children weren't strictly human, but supersoldiers, or some other abomination dreamed up by some government nazi scientist?

I am of the opinion that a host can't murder a parasite. If a woman kills her unborn child, that is her right. If someone else kills the child without her consent, then and only THEN is it murder.


Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite by Thomas L. Johnson

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (**** sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (**** sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

[Kludge]

Well.... We want to "educate" them. This way seems faster.

It's time for a War on Kipple!

[idirtify]

“Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite” by Thomas L. Johnson

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

snip



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitic
par•a•site
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

[jmdrake]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitic
par•a•site
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

:rolleyes: And when your old and decrepit and can't wipe the drool of your face, hopefully one of those "parasites" will have grown up so they can do it for you.

[muh_roads]

I thought this was common knowledge? Not really from a government agenda but from a personal choice. You aren't ready to support a kid, it is undesirable and inconvenient, so you abort. As long as you do it early in the first few weeks I don't see a problem.

I know I'd rather be aborted than born to some poor ass negro family. I'm shitting myself while momma is too busy collecting welfare and watching judge judy. fuck that...abortion is considerate for some of these poor kids. I wish their stupid parents had been aborted.

I'm sure the "soul" if you believe in such a thing will transfer to a "wanted" baby. god would be quite a cruel joke if he only gave the soul one random shot through no fault of their own. if god is all knowing he wouldn't plant a soul into what he knows will be aborted anyway...right?

Seriously who cares about this issue. I don't like Ruthie but not for this reason. Just imagine how much more of a problem welfare would be if abortion was illegal? yikes.

[acptulsa]

I know I'd rather be aborted than born to some poor ass negro family...

So, you have no problem with being born into a poor ass family and to a mother who watches Judge Judy instead of changing your diaper just so long as she isn't of African descent?

One of these days I'll figure out how any libertarian could possibly embrace any stereotype. Is the individual holy or not?

[muh_roads]

So, you have no problem with being born into a poor ass family and to a mother who watches Judge Judy instead of changing your diaper just so long as she isn't of African descent?

One of these days I'll figure out how any libertarian could possibly embrace any stereotype. Is the individual holy or not?

nah, the "poor ass negro" part is just my attempt to weed out the touchy politically correct pussies. I wouldn't wanna be born to any uber poor family.

[BillyDkid]

Didn't know Ginsy was a Nazi....

http://208.106.191.145/_media/imgs/articles/a55_euthanasia.jpg
Yeah, strange stuff to be hearing from a Jew. Limiting the number of undesirables.

[idiom]

One of these days I'll figure out how any libertarian could possibly embrace any stereotype. Is the individual holy or not?

When it comes to Ethical choices the Rothbardian school is mysteriously collectivist.


Apart from economic and political concerns, Rothbard increasingly focused his attention on and stressed the importance of culture as a sociological prerequisite of libertarianism.


Both were in fact sociologically incompatible, and libertarianism could and should be combined exclusively with traditional Western bourgeois culture;

[acptulsa]

When it comes to Ethical choices the Rothbardian school is mysteriously collectivist.

When it comes to liberties as well. Is that not better than the almost feudal system we have now, where power excuses everything and a lack of power makes you guilty of everything?

If people are equal, then standards of ethics should be applied equally. No one should be exemption, as that exemption is inequality.

[Conservative Christian]

I'll probably get stoned for this - but I wish there were some way to keep people who aren't going to take care of their kids from having them. If abortion helps in this aspect (and I believe it does) it is a good thing.

This really isn't eugenics. It's just a crying shame that there are so many suffering kids out there.

Sorry, but your Nazi "quality of life" argument = MONUMENTAL FAIL.

So spare us your crocodile tears about "suffering kids".

[Conservative Christian]

Yeah, strange stuff to be hearing from a Jew. Limiting the number of undesirables.

I'd be willing to bet that if you researched Ginsburg's family tree, you'd find that she's not a true descendant of Abraham.

Over the centuries, many gentiles have claimed to be Jews, for a myriad of different reasons.

Google "Kazarian Jews".

[idiom]

When it comes to liberties as well. Is that not better than the almost feudal system we have now, where power excuses everything and a lack of power makes you guilty of everything?

If people are equal, then standards of ethics should be applied equally. No one should be exemption, as that exemption is inequality.

If people are equal then the prices should be standardised.

Ethics are subjective. Each individual is free to have their own values and pay what they want. Why should everyone buy the same thing? Rothbard's mistake was to try and connect an objective standard of morality to a subjective system of economics.

[idirtify]

:rolleyes: And when your old and decrepit and can't wipe the drool of your face, hopefully one of those "parasites" will have grown up so they can do it for you.

If your comedy is to imply a possibility of abortion eradicating all people younger than myself, it’s neither funny nor valid. You see, good comedy has to be at least somewhat credible. The last time I looked out the window, people still seemed to be reproducing quite nicely.

[jmdrake]

If your comedy is to imply a possibility of abortion eradicating all people younger than myself, it’s neither funny nor valid. You see, good comedy has to be at least somewhat credible. The last time I looked out the window, people still seemed to be reproducing quite nicely.

Give it time. So far the "one child policy" only exists in China. But it's coming here. A few years ago most sane people wouldn't have believed a "cap and trade" bill was a possibility or a "one world currency" (being pushed and even revealed as we speak) or total gun bans (being pushed as we speak) or a complete elimination of the first amendment through "hate crimes" laws (being pushed as we speak.) And frankly I wasn't expecting you to laugh.

[jmdrake]

nah, the "poor ass negro" part is just my attempt to weed out the touchy politically correct pussies. I wouldn't wanna be born to any uber poor family.

Hopefully in your next life you will be reincarnated into the equivalent of the Michael Jackson family. He wasn't poor and he was trying his best not to be "negro".

[literatim]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitic
par•a•site
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Are you seriously going to use a Webster dictionary as your source to refute my entire post? :rolleyes:

[dwdollar]

...coming from the ugliest person to ever sit on the federal bench. It's somewhat ironic.

[idirtify]

Give it time. So far the "one child policy" only exists in China. But it's coming here. A few years ago most sane people wouldn't have believed a "cap and trade" bill was a possibility or a "one world currency" (being pushed and even revealed as we speak) or total gun bans (being pushed as we speak) or a complete elimination of the first amendment through "hate crimes" laws (being pushed as we speak.) And frankly I wasn't expecting you to laugh.

Re your first three sentences:
If the basis for your argument against the individual freedom to abort is that abortion will soon be mandated by government, that’s lame. Under that logic, we should argue against all individual freedoms on the basis that the government may one day remove the freedom part by mandating all of them.

Re your latter sentences:
They are talking about the opposite: freedoms being directly taken away. These sentences make sense by themselves, but do not pertain to this discussion.

[idirtify]

Are you seriously going to use a Webster dictionary as your source to refute my entire post? :rolleyes:

Well…YES. Why do you ask? I assumed it was OK to paste an outside source, especially since the contention was over a definition of a term and I used a widely-respected dictionary. Besides, YOU pasted yours from an outside source! IOW are you seriously criticizing me for using a dictionary to refute your definition of “parasitic”, when you pasted “your” definition FROM AN OLD ARTICLE BY TL JOHNSON in order to try to refute tmosley?? :confused:

[purplechoe]

Re your first three sentences:
If the basis for your argument against the individual freedom to abort is that abortion will soon be mandated by government, that’s lame.

It's all in how you see it I guess. You say abort, I say kill. Abort sounds too much like "abandon ship" rather than "lets kill it".

I understand why you choose to say "abort" though. You have to convince yourself that you're not killing, just aborting.

[idirtify]

It's all in how you see it I guess. You say abort, I say kill. Abort sounds too much like "abandon ship" rather than "lets kill it".

I understand why you choose to say "abort" though. You have to convince yourself that you're not killing, just aborting.

Of course it’s in how you see it, but in a discussion forum it’s all about how you STATE it. If you can not support your claims IN WRITING, you lose credibility.

In that regard, how about explaining your post? You seem to imply that since abortion is a euphemism for “killing”, 1) the act should be illegal and 2) the term shouldn’t be used. First, everyone kills many things every day; so it’s less a matter of “killing” and more a matter of WHAT you are killing. If all killing were made illegal tomorrow, all humans would be dead in around a month. Second, I thought using the term “abortion” was considered pretty straightforward. Are those who defend the mother’s right to abort now even scorned for uttering the term?

[jkr]

we all die, we don't all kill

[idirtify]

we all die, we don't all kill

Are you saying you don't kill anything?

[literatim]

Well…YES. Why do you ask? I assumed it was OK to paste an outside source, especially since the contention was over a definition of a term and I used a widely-respected dictionary. Besides, YOU pasted yours from an outside source! IOW are you seriously criticizing me for using a dictionary to refute your definition of “parasitic”, when you pasted “your” definition FROM AN OLD ARTICLE BY TL JOHNSON in order to try to refute tmosley?? :confused:

It has nothing to do with it being an outside source, but the source itself. A dictionary is not a medical or biology textbook. Or do you propose to legalizing abortion for "1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery"?

"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted." -- The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60

Do you not believe that the fetus or embryo is human? Or do you believe that a **** sapien organism is a parasites and thus murder should be legal?

[idirtify]

It has nothing to do with it being an outside source, but the source itself. A dictionary is not a medical or biology textbook. Or do you propose to legalizing abortion for "1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery"?

"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted." -- The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60

Do you not believe that the fetus or embryo is human? Or do you believe that a **** sapien organism is a parasites and thus murder should be legal?

If Webster’s Dictionary is not authoritative enough for you, see this medical source:

http://www.medterms.com
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism.
Parasitic: Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another.

But the trouble is, I don’t believe your article by TL Johnson consisted of a medical or biological source either. Why does mine have to be what yours never was?

“Do you not believe that the fetus or embryo is human? Or do you believe that a **** sapien organism is a parasites and thus murder should be legal?”

I believe that a human fetus or embryo is human, but not an INDIVIDUAL with the rights personhood – since it exists inside another person’s body and acts like a parasite. Therefore “killing” one is not “murder”. Keep in mind that a cancerous tumor is also human.

[tmosley]

It has nothing to do with it being an outside source, but the source itself. A dictionary is not a medical or biology textbook. Or do you propose to legalizing abortion for "1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery"?

"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted." -- The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60

Do you not believe that the fetus or embryo is human? Or do you believe that a **** sapien organism is a parasites and thus murder should be legal?

The person being exploited has the right to cut off the person doing the exploitation, even if it means that person will die. If there is a way to remove it without killing it, and implant it within your body, I'm sure many mothers would take you up on it. But their isn't. The fact is that the government doesn't have any right to ANYTHING that is inside of your skin. Period.

Should pregnant woman be prevented from drinking or doing drugs? Should they be locked in a padded room such that they can't stab their womb? Should they be tied down, arms chained so they don't punch themselves in the stomach? Should they have their spines severed so that they can't self abort by involuntary muscle contraction (which is possible with meditation and training). Forcing someone to bear a new life into the world against their will can be just as grizzly as taking a life out of it. If you want to subject yourself to the abortion police with their batons and jack-boots, then by all means, hire them to make sure you don't perform your own abortion, but don't you dare break down someone else's door, break their arm, put foot to face in order to force someone to go through ANOTHER traumatic experience against their will. That is PURE EVIL.

[klamath]

I just laugh at people that believe in abortion as they try and whine about rights and freedoms being lost. They can whine but they are about the biggest hypocrites in the world.

[foofighter20x]

Isn't the pat answer to those who oppose abortion to ask the question: "What about in the cases of incest and rape?"

Isn't that what Roe v Wade was about?

Bosso

That's what it was sold as. Too bad no such things ever really happened to Norma Jean McCovey.

The story about being raped by a bunch of carnies was a lie.

[idirtify]

I just laugh at people that believe in abortion as they try and whine about rights and freedoms being lost. They can whine but they are about the biggest hypocrites in the world.

You have stated your position, but not explained it. Why? Can you not support it?

You have also insulted many people, without so much as a hint why you think we are hypocrites. Will you be explaining that too, or not?