If Roe v. Wade was decided because of a "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.", then how is the narrative about choice and freedom accurate?
More importantly, which populations do we not want "too many of"?
12 comments:
Simply more evidence that truth has nothing to do with the support of abortion "rights".
It’s just interesting to hear what sounds like justification for eugenics, as a rationale for Roe.
It's interesting how you post these vague unknown quotes and expect to make points. (Is it something that you think makes you appear clever? If so, it's not working. It makes you appear devious and dishonest.)
It's interesting how, if you look up what Ginsburg ACTUALLY said, and how she made it abundantly clear that (of course) she was not speaking of eugenics and that it was taken out of context... it's interesting how you waited almost a whole weak to accuse one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years of eugenics.
It's interesting that this says much more about your low character than hers.
And it's interesting that you won't even understand this.
Shame on you.
Dan,
I struggled with posting your comment because of your intransigence in an earlier post, but decided to do so anyway to point out a couple of huge flaws in your partisan rant.
1. I occasionally post quotes that are unattributed, to make a point. I virtually always attribute them after the point is made.
2. "Greatest justices" is your opinion, nothing more. Or it's one more claim you can't prove.
3. I've not "accused" anyone of anything. When you continually make these absurd accusations, you just expose your obsession ignoring facts and reality.
I know it's difficult for you to comprehend, but perhaps you were wrong about the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the Ginsburg quote to be an attempt at painting her inappropriately, when instead my point was something else entirely.
Actually, after re checking the context, I see nothing in the larger context that demonstrates that my point is an unreasonable conclusion.
This is apparently because you lack simple decent reasoning. People like you are glad to assume the worst of people who disagree with you.
You don't know how you could have known that Ginsburg was not of course in support of eugenics? It's because she's a decent human being as is evidenced by the data of her life.
The demonization by Trump and his minions of liberals is diabolical, demonic. Not of God in the least.
Stop it. Just stop it.
"This is apparently because you lack simple decent reasoning. People like you are glad to assume the worst of people who disagree with you."
This is an interesting way to lead off and respond to my previous comments. I seems to show that you are the one lacking in reasoning and responding based on prejudices, steeped in partisan preconceptions. It makes me wonder if you actually read my post or my comments.
"You don't know how you could have known that Ginsburg was not of course in support of eugenics? It's because she's a decent human being as is evidenced by the data of her life."
When you base everything you've gotten your panties wadded about on a false premise, then no amount of twisting, ignoring or justifying will ever bring you out of the hole of falsehood you've dug for yourself. Now, If I WAS trying to make the claim that Ginsburg was in favor of eugenics, I'd rely on more than one quote. But I'm not even remotely attempting to make any sort of suggestion about Ginsburg and eugenics, and there's nothing in my post or comments that does so. I'd ask that you answer the questions in the original post, but you won't. I'd ask that you point out where I've specifically accused Ginsburg of supporting eugenics, but you can't and wouldn't if you could. I'm not going to suggest that you don't understand. I'm suggesting that you've chosen not to even attempt to understand, but to simply bull ahead with your narrative regardless of whether or not it's rooted in reality.
"The demonization by Trump and his minions of liberals is diabolical, demonic. Not of God in the least."
The fact that you are now seeing demons everywhere, without regard to reality has me concerned for your sanity. Being this dissociated from reality isn't healthy.
Sometimes, it's just better to be blunt.
THIS POST DOES NOT ACCUSE GINSBERG OF ANYTHING.
Read slowly and try to understand.
When you offer a quote from someone and then Wonder why they seem to be supporting Eugenics, that is a weaselly mealy-mouthed pissant sort of way to accuse somebody without having the balls to stand up and accuse them.
And when the thing you're wondering about is obviously stupidly false, it is even more diabolical. Stop it. Just stop it. And stop pretending like you don't understand this.
You cannot be this stupid.
"Read slowly and try to understand."
Definitely not the first time you'd be well advised to take your own advice, definitely not the first time you'd try to expect a higher standard to others than you expect of your self.
"When you offer a quote from someone"
Except I didn't "offer a quote from someone" I excerpted two individual parts of the quote (parts that the context make clear are NOT necessarily Ginsburg's thoughts), and intentionally didn't attribute those to Ginsburg because she's not the point of the post, you obtuse moron.
"...and then Wonder why they seem to be supporting Eugenics'"
Except, I didn't "wonder why they seem to be supporting Eugenics" (Although your inconsistent use of capital latters, your use of the "E" in "Eugenics" does raise some questions)
No where in this post or the comments to I, in any way, shape, or form, express or imply anything about Ginsburg's view of eugenics. You continuing to lie about this reinforces the impression that you're unhinged and dissociated from reality.
"...that is a weaselly mealy-mouthed pissant sort of way to accuse somebody without having the balls to stand up and accuse them."
Except that it isn't. I'd suggest that you've inferred something that isn't actually there, but infer suggests an honest effort to understand.
"And when the thing you're wondering about is obviously stupidly false, it is even more diabolical. Stop it. Just stop it. And stop pretending like you don't understand this."
Nothing is as obviously stupidly false as your ranting.
"You cannot be this stupid."
Yet you clearly can.
It'd be a waste of time to point out specifically where you're wrong, but it wouldn't matter. You've clearly appointed yourself the arbiter of the correctness of what you say, but also of the correctness of what I say.
If you want to continue to kick against the pricks of your imagination, go right ahead. But you've clearly given up any pretense of a notion of a respectful dialog, or of even bothering to ask if your biased, prejudiced, assumptions are correct. It's easier for you to assume them true and argue against your assumptions.
It's almost as if you think that eugenics has played absolutely zero role in public policy in the US in the last century or so.
As I re-read the original post, together with your response to my comment at the top, I can't see that citing Ginsburg makes any difference whatsoever to the point which Dan has clearly missed (missing the point has always been for those like Dan almost a required and intentional practice).
I get that some have seen this quote as support for eugenics by Ginsburg, and that really angers Dan and other defenders of baby killing. Even the interviewer later stated she believed Ginsburg was only referring to those who first decided Roe, not necessarily her own beliefs about population control and which population should be controlled. But while Ginsburg never actually is quoted as opposing eugenics (in any response I've seen as yet to questions surrounding her original statement), what real difference does it make? Clearly, there's a population of which she supports the elimination: the unborn not wanted by those who don't view them as worthy of life.
In the meantime, the point which Dan misses was not about any of that, but rather was about "he narrative about choice and freedom" and how what Ginsburg believed about why Roe was decided belies that narrative.
I agree, while Ginsburg’s lack of any negative response to the eugenics aspect is strange, it’s not enough to paint her with that broad brush (another thing at which Dan excels).
The point she’s making is that there was a constituency that supported Roe for the reasons she quoted. Unfortunately her view diverges from the narrative that Roe was meant to save and empower women.
Perhaps he should have answered the questions first.
Post a Comment