Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes The Case For Killing Poor Children

[Revmitchell]

...Beyond her enthusiastically pro-abortion stance, the justice’s ideas about which Americans should be aborted struck many as horrifying. The poor, she reasoned, should have more access to abortions because it “makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth,” she said, “and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”


http://www.rightwingnews.com/top-ne...er-ginsburg-makes-case-killing-poor-children/

 

[InTheLight]

http://www.rightwingnews.com/top-ne...er-ginsburg-makes-case-killing-poor-children/

I see you continue to get your news from an unbiased source...

 

[church mouse guy]

Ginsburg is a Nazi collaborator, isn't she?

 

[Revmitchell]

I see you continue to get your news from an unbiased source...

Uh no one does. Not even you.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I see you continue to get your news from an unbiased source...

Whether the source is biased about what she said is irrelevant. The fact is that she said it.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Whether the source is biased about what she said is irrelevant. The fact is that she said it.

That's what I was thinking. I read the article, and ignored most of it. But there was a quote. I read that part.

 

[Deacon]

Simply reducing the surplus population

She's just stating what we already know.

We've heard from law enforcement sources about the drop in crime rates over the years.

Others have noted the dropping crime rate correlates with abortion statistics.

States that allowed abortion prior to the Supreme Courts Row vs. Wade decision had a statically significant drop in their rates compared to non-abortion allowing states.

These statistics followed in the rest of the country after abortion became the norm.

Aborting the poor criminally prone population reduces the crime rate.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

She's just stating what we already know.

We've heard from law enforcement sources about the drop in crime rates over the years.

Others have noted the dropping crime rate correlates with abortion statistics.

States that allowed abortion prior to the Supreme Courts Row vs. Wade decision had a statically significant drop in their rates compared to non-abortion allowing states.

These statistics followed in the rest of the country after abortion became the norm.

Aborting the poor criminally prone population reduces the crime rate.

Rob

That is not what she is doing. What she is doing is promoting that action in order to gain the result. That is disgusting.

 

[InTheLight]

Originally Posted by InTheLight
I see you continue to get your news from an unbiased source...

Uh no one does. Not even you.

That's what I was thinking. I read the article, and ignored most of it. But there was a quote. I read that part.

Here is the quote in RevMitch's OP:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth,” she said, “and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”


And here is the first sentence of the linked-to article in the OP:

During a recent interview with Elle, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed the legacy she hopes to leave behind. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she chose the issue of promoting abortions as the realm in which she has been most influential.

And here is the article in Elle, that the rightwingnews claims the quote is from:

http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

You will notice that nowhere in that Elle article is this quote to be found. Rather, that particular quote was from a NY Times magazine article from 2009. The rightwingnews is alleging that Ginsburg is worried about her legacy and that her legacy is about stopping poor women from having children. They just lifted an out of context quote of hers from five years ago in order to enhance their slant on the story. So again, I see that you get your news from unbiased sources.

 

[InTheLight]

She's just stating what we already know.

We've heard from law enforcement sources about the drop in crime rates over the years.

Others have noted the dropping crime rate correlates with abortion statistics.

States that allowed abortion prior to the Supreme Courts Row vs. Wade decision had a statically significant drop in their rates compared to non-abortion allowing states.

These statistics followed in the rest of the country after abortion became the norm.

Aborting the poor criminally prone population reduces the crime rate.

Rob

Yes, the tie between rising abortions among poor people and the decline in violent crimes was a very controversial section in the book "Freakanomics".

 

[Sapper Woody]

Here is the quote in RevMitch's OP:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth,” she said, “and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”


And here is the first sentence of the linked-to article in the OP:

During a recent interview with Elle, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed the legacy she hopes to leave behind. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she chose the issue of promoting abortions as the realm in which she has been most influential.

And here is the article in Elle, that the rightwingnews claims the quote is from:

http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

You will notice that nowhere in that Elle article is this quote to be found. Rather, that particular quote was from a NY Times magazine article from 2009. The rightwingnews is alleging that Ginsburg is worried about her legacy and that her legacy is about stopping poor women from having children. They just lifted an out of context quote of hers from five years ago in order to enhance their slant on the story. So again, I see that you get your news from unbiased sources.

Interesting. Honestly, I wasn't interested enough to do more research. I just read the quotes. But it's sad that people would piece together a story like that. Assuming you're right. Again, I'm not interested enough to do my own research. Only interested enough to post, evidently! Lol

 

[Revmitchell]

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388757/we-only-whisper-it-kevin-d-williamson

 

[Revmitchell]

Margarte Sanger would be proud of Ginsburg though.

 

[carpro]

I see you continue to get your news from an unbiased source...

The real question is...Are the quotes accurate?

The answer is yes.

That is the true test of the validity of the source.

You can spin it any way you like, and the author did. But she said it and meant it. No getting around it.

 

[church mouse guy]

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388757/we-only-whisper-it-kevin-d-williamson

She would be hysterical if we decided that Jews were the population that we want to abort no matter what. What a hypocrite she is! That is the reason that I call her a Nazi collaborator.

 

[InTheLight]

The real question is...Are the quotes accurate?

The answer is yes.

That is the true test of the validity of the source.

You can spin it any way you like, and the author did. But she said it and meant it. No getting around it.

The people that are doing the spinning are the author's of the article in righwingnews and RevMitch.

Let's look at it.

Thread title by RevMitch: "Ginsburg Makes Case for Killing Poor Children". Reality is that fetuses are being aborted. Are unborn fetuses "poor"?

The quote: "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."

Notice Ginsburg is talking in the third person. She is making an observation about what society in general thought about population growth, not what she necessarily thought.

So in RevMitch's world Ginsburg is making a case in 2014 for 'killing poor children' based on a quote she made in 2009 about thoughts she had concerning US society in 1973.

This is shoddy reporting and hyberbole on the OP.

That said, Ginsburg is a despicable human being who likely thinks abortions by poor people benefits society. But you don't get that by crafting a hit piece with poor journalism.

 

[church mouse guy]

The people that are doing the spinning are the author's of the article in righwingnews and RevMitch.

Let's look at it.

Thread title by RevMitch: "Ginsburg Makes Case for Killing Poor Children". Reality is that fetuses are being aborted. Are unborn fetuses "poor"?

The quote: "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."

Notice Ginsburg is talking in the third person. She is making an observation about what society in general thought about population growth, not what she necessarily thought.

So in RevMitch's world Ginsburg is making a case in 2014 for 'killing poor children' based on a quote she made in 2009 about thoughts she had concerning US society in 1973.

This is shoddy reporting and hyberbole on the OP.

That said, Ginsburg is a despicable human being who likely thinks abortions by poor people benefits society. But you don't get that by crafting a hit piece with poor journalism.

No, Ginsburg is not talking in the third person but in the first person plural.

Like most liberals, she wants to put other people to death with abortion but she does not want to put Jews to death because she is Jewish. This is called hypocrisy and this is not the only reason that Clinton should never have put her on the Supreme Court.

 

[InTheLight]

No, Ginsburg is not talking in the third person but in the first person plural.

Look at it anyway you want, the fact is, she is not saying that she was in favor of a "growth in population that we don't want more of."

We know she is pro-abortion. But you're not going to get that from this particular quote.

Like most liberals, she wants to put other people to death with abortion

Wow.

but she does not want to put Jews to death because she is Jewish.

Double wow.

 

[church mouse guy]

"We", as everyone knows, is first person plural. That would be looking at it grammatically. You are the one looking at it anyway you want.

 

[InTheLight]

"We", as everyone knows, is first person plural. That would be looking at it grammatically. You are the one looking at it anyway you want.

Sure, as in "We the People". Right?