Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
89 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Is Abortion/Eugenics the answer to poverty and crime? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This Sunday, in the recent edition of the New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the following:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote:
Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided...there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.


This comment was part of a larger conversation about the use of Medicaid (federal funding) for abortions that was determined to be unconstitutional in 1980 by the SCOTUS. Who was she thinking about when she said "too many of"? Of course, the interviewer didn't follow up, but it would have been nice had Ginsberg elaborated. So who was she thinking about when saying such a thing?

Oliver Wendel Holmes once said the "starting point for an ideal for the law" should be the "coordinated human effort . . . to build a race." Hm...haven't some leaders in history tried that already? PolPot comes to mind. I certainly won't pull a Goodwin (although maybe I just did).

The esteemed OWH also wrote a letter to a friend in 1927 saying "I . . . delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day - and felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform." Reform for what? Eliminating the mentally retarded and the impoverished? (by the way, the highlight is mine - interesting word usage 80 years ago...)

1970's Washington Post journalist, current New York Observer columnist, and one-time 60-Minutes commentator Nicholas von Hoffman once wrote:

Nicholas von Hoffman wrote:
Free, cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don’t want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster.


This is a guy whose political upbringing stems from influences by none other than Saul Alinsky, community activist and author of "Rules for Radicals. Alinsky was also the noted driving force and significant influence behind our current President.

In 1992, in a letter to then President Clinton, Ron Weddington (one of the co-counsels in the historic Roe v. Wade case) implored President Clinton to get RU-486 (the "abortion pill") to market with haste. He even wrote the following:

Ron Weddington wrote:
(Y)ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. 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. For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.


Just wondering what people thought about abortion being an answer to poverty, crime, and misery. It's one thing to insist that abortion remain legal so that women can choose what to do with their own bodies.

But if the US Government is going to be the purveyors of health care, and the controller of costs associated with it, will they use abortion (for the young) and eugenics (for the old) as a means of controlling poverty and crime?

Scary stuff to think about as we push down the road of government health care.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But if the US Government is going to be the purveyors of health care, and the controller of costs associated with it, will they use abortion (for the young) and eugenics (for the old) as a means of controlling poverty and crime?

Yeah. Giving access to healthcare for everyone is a plot to force abortion on the disgusting poor.
Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.

edit: no emoticon, but sarcasm intended.

How and I'd like to know how eugenics could be used on the old people, too.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
SH W
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is one of the topics in Freakonomics.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Latria wrote:
This is one of the topics in Freakonomics.


Which I have read, and is a very interesting read. But I read that about 3 or 4 years ago, and that was not the impetus for this thread. The impetus for this thread was the fact that a) we have a SCOTUS Justice with (potentially) a desire for government controlled eugenics, and b) a potential SCOTUS Justice/current nominee who may, quite possibly, think the same way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Regardless of what some people think is the end result, easy access to affordable abortions doesn't force women and girls to have abortions. Whatever reasons the consumers of abortions have are the salient issue.

Until a government controlled healthcare apparatus is created that pressures abortions on people, whatever these people you quoted think is just hot air. You can go after these individuals motives, but leap to questioning government healthcare is unwarranted so far.

I would say, without knowing for sure, that most of the women fighting for abortion rights aren't doing it as a form of class-warfare against the poor.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Freakonomics makes clear that they aren't advocating a policy decision.

It's not such a stretch to think that (assuming all pregnancies are carried to term) babies born into families that would have chosen abortion given the option will be more at risk for all sorts of things highly-correlated with crime than babies born into families that would not have chosen abortion. Freakonomics claims that the data backs this up -- that crime stats show a clear drop less than 20 years after Roe v. Wade and that when the data is controlled for other variables (and especially when you look at a state-by-state comparison), making abortion freely available did reduce crime.

It's a far cry from that to argue that abortion should be targeted at racial groups or that any sort of coercive effort should be made.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
b) a potential SCOTUS Justice/current nominee who may, quite possibly, think the same way.


I didn't see anything in your post linking Sotomoyer mto these comments, did I miss something?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HavocIsHere wrote:
Quote:
But if the US Government is going to be the purveyors of health care, and the controller of costs associated with it, will they use abortion (for the young) and eugenics (for the old) as a means of controlling poverty and crime?

Yeah. Giving access to healthcare for everyone is a plot to force abortion on the disgusting poor.
Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.

edit: no emoticon, but sarcasm intended.

How and I'd like to know how eugenics could be used on the old people, too.


But there are those within the US Government, or at a minumum with the US Government's "ear" that actually believe this is a reasonable approach/solution.

Ginsberg thinks and rules in the same manner as Olliver Wendal Holmes. Our current President has said that the "civil rights movement didn't go far enough in getting the courts to decide policy and redistribute wealth." He now has an oppotunity to shape those courts that 40 years ago "didn't do enough". Will his current nominee be one that "does more" with her (potentially) new position?

Given that the US Government will potentially be the purveyors of health care, will those who run the system force abortions and eugenics? They do it in China. And eugenics are encouraged, if not outright forced, in some European countries. Will the US health system be any different, considering that Obama's plans are based on those same European models?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
obama wrote:
"civil rights movement didn't go far enough in getting the courts to decide policy and redistribute wealth."


That's a bit of a stretch from abortion isn't it? Ending poor people's preganancies doesn't really take from the rich and give to the poor, unless you mean take from the rich to get rid of the poor, but then the money just comes back to the rich anyway.

Regardless, it's painting with a broad brush, you have quoted 3 notable people who hav estated less poor babies equals less crime so we should enable people to have less poor babies, yet neither Obama nor Sotomoyer have ever said anything to show they are on the same platform. I'm just not getting the link.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bernhardt
United States
saratoga springs
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Christopher, you are making a pro-choice argument but don't know it.

A government that forces you to take a child to term can also force you to abort your child. That is why the choice must remain with the mother. Pro-choice folks have been saying this since the '70s.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
This sort of thinking is hardly new. That it's been around for centuries doesn't make it any less disgusting and despicable that significant portions of our modern political leadership share this view. Certainly they don't openly advocate it, but it's there to see if you're willing to look.

What you did was answer how it is that someone like me, a clearly non-religious person, can be pro-life.

Furthermore, it reveals that the purported compassion of the modern liberal is often a complete lie and that the real compassion and concern for social justice more often resides in the conservative/religious segment of our population.

One side says - let's eliminate the problem by eliminating problem populations before they hatch/breed.

The other side says - life is precious, let's help it and face the consequences of our mistakes, when we make them.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:

But there are those within the US Government, or at a minumum with the US Government's "ear" that actually believe this is a reasonable approach/solution.


I don't think they think of it as a solution, but (to them) a beneficial consequence of a much larger issue.

It's like saying that the stimulus package should be pushed because more shovels will be sold and we can rescue the shovel industry. If you are concerned about shovels, then it is true, but the majority of the people see the stimulus package in a very different and more direct light.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
This sort of thinking is hardly new. That it's been around for centuries doesn't make it any less disgusting and despicable that significant portions of our modern political leadership share this view. Certainly they don't openly advocate it, but it's there to see if you're willing to look.

What you did was answer how it is that someone like me, a clearly non-religious person, can be pro-life.

Furthermore, it reveals that the purported compassion of the modern liberal is often a complete lie and that the real compassion and concern for social justice more often resides in the conservative/religious segment of our population.

One side says - let's eliminate the problem by eliminating problem populations before they hatch/breed.

The other side says - life is precious, let's help it and face the consequences of our mistakes, when we make them.



Really? You think these people quoted represent the pro-choice movement? That everything else ever said about pro-choice was a smoke-screen to hide the real agenda of sterilizing the poor? You need to get back to the store because you just got to the bottom of your pitcher of kool-aid.

It would be like me quoting a few neo-cons and saying that all conservatives feel like that. I think the current state of the GOP and it's alienation from it's base that shows that is a fallacy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
!
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Latria wrote:
This is one of the topics in Freakonomics.


Which I have read, and is a very interesting read. But I read that about 3 or 4 years ago, and that was not the impetus for this thread. The impetus for this thread was the fact that a) we have a SCOTUS Justice with (potentially) a desire for government controlled eugenics, and b) a potential SCOTUS Justice/current nominee who may, quite possibly, think the same way.


Such B.S.

First, you've misread completely what Ginsberg actually said in that article.

Second, why on earth would Ginsberg's supposed support for eugenics, itself a freakishly ridiculous slander, lead you to believe that Sotomayor may "quite possibly" also hold the position. Because she is also a woman jurist? They all think the same way?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

It won't be that obvious. But I'm certain we'll see the Government Bean Counters refuse medical treatment to the elderly on some "quality of life" ground. (Hey! We can rescue Social Security, too!) Will we see Government Health Care Agencies approving money for abortions, but not for the costs associated with giving birth? Hmm . . . there's an idea!


What do you use for the basis of your certainty? Medicare? Because my experience with Medicare is that the elderly get care until the end, no matter how good those last weeks of life are.

Maybe you meant to replace "certain" with "paranoid".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:

That's just silly. A government that protects and respects human life (the pro-life position) will respect and protect human life. A government willing to discard human life because it doesn't meet some criteria (the pro-abortion position) is a government willing to kill those who are convenient.


There is always a criteria, no matter what label you put on it. The government has a license to kill, whether you protect the unborn or not. The more you let them control your choices, the more power you give them to use their license against you or the people you care about.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
b) a potential SCOTUS Justice/current nominee who may, quite possibly, think the same way.


I didn't see anything in your post linking Sotomoyer mto these comments, did I miss something?


No, you didn't miss anything. There is a reason that I hesitate to mention anything that Sotomayor may say. That's because nearly everything she has said in the past 15-20 years as a lawyer and judge that she has been challenged on the last few days has either been completed "rejected" by her (i.e. she has changed her mind), or she is postulating to get herself approved by the Senate, THEN will say what she really means.

But as of right now, the Honorable Sotomayor is not really part of the conversation at this time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Freakonomics makes clear that they aren't advocating a policy decision.


Absolutely true. His discussions regarding the data correlation between abortion and poverty/crime is just that - a conversation about the data. Levitt makes clear that he is talking nothing about policy, and only about the data.

At least that is how I read it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
obama wrote:
"civil rights movement didn't go far enough in getting the courts to decide policy and redistribute wealth."


That's a bit of a stretch from abortion isn't it?


In some sense, no. There isn't a stretch. I guess I should have been more clear in the part of Obama's comments that I was trying to stress, namely the "courts to decide policy" part, not the redistribute wealth part. Obama's comments were about how the civil rights movement didn't go far enough in getting the courts to decide policy when it comes to redistributing wealth. If he thinks the courts purpose is to decide policy in redistributing wealth, then I would tend to believe that he thinks the courst purpose is to decide policy in determining health care (or anything else).

In this particular case, we have a long-dead Justice in Holmes that was a proponent of eugenics, a current SCOTUS Justice who says the 1980 decisiion was wrong because it didn't get rid of enough of the people that "we don't want", and a President with a proven track record of believing that the courts should "set policy" that now has an oppotunity to appoint a new SCOTUS Justice.

In the meantime, there are also others who have at least some connection to radicalism related to abortion/eugenics (be it Weddington or von Hoffman) who have either the ear of policy makers, or have been directly involved in shaping the abortion debate itself. Considering that von Hoffman and Obama share the same influencer in Alinsky, and that Weddington was the attorney involved in Roe v. Wade and is apparently friends enough with the Clinton clan to be able to send letters of recomendation, I am one to believe that these people will also have a (potential) influence on our current President as well.

TheChin! wrote:
I'm just not getting the link.


Maybe I am just creating one that doesn't exist, then.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheLightSarcastic wrote:
Quote:

Actually, that's 3-18 people per execution. If the news media expanded their coverage or if more states proceeded quickly with executions like TX, the numbers would likely be higher (if the studies' conclusions are to be believed.)


How are you going to get all future murderers to watch T.V. at the right time, though? Some kind of V-chip? Maybe it could come with any handgun, power tool, or informercial knife set?


You're obviously not thinking through your entire repertoire of 80s future-CA-governor movie plots, Gen. The problem solves itself once you start thinking on that basis. Win-win!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Is destroying the forest the solution to wildfires?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
!
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Obama's comments were about how the civil rights movement didn't go far enough in getting the courts to decide policy when it comes to redistributing wealth. If he thinks the courts purpose is to decide policy in redistributing wealth, then I would tend to believe that he thinks the courst purpose is to decide policy in determining health care (or anything else).


Except, that's not actually what Obama said in that interview. He thought that it was a mistake for the 60's civil rights movement to press for broad social change and the definition of new rights through the courts and not through the legislature.

chrisnd wrote:
In this particular case, we have a long-dead Justice in Holmes that was a proponent of eugenics, a current SCOTUS Justice who says the 1980 decisiion was wrong because it didn't get rid of enough of the people that "we don't want", and a President with a proven track record of believing that the courts should "set policy" that now has an oppotunity to appoint a new SCOTUS Justice.


Again, not actually what Ginsberg said. You have absolutely no ear for context clues, do you?

Here's a quote for you:

Richard Nixon wrote:
"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding: "Or a rape."


Given that current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia worked as the general counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy under Richard Nixon, this is pretty clear evidence that all current conservative justices support forced abortions for mixed-race children, am I right?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bernhardt
United States
saratoga springs
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
wargamer66 wrote:
Christopher, you are making a pro-choice argument but don't know it.

A government that forces you to take a child to term can also force you to abort your child. That is why the choice must remain with the mother. Pro-choice folks have been saying this since the '70s.


That's just silly. A government that protects and respects human life (the pro-life position) will respect and protect human life. A government willing to discard human life because it doesn't meet some criteria (the pro-abortion position) is a government willing to kill those who are inconvenient.

(edit:changed "convenient" to "inconvenient" PIMF)


Well, clearly, not everyone agrees with your premise that eggs are humans. The pro-choicers are making the point that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling women what to do with their wombs. It is a freedom argument.

Does it upset your meme to know that eugenics proposals in the past couple of decades seem to come from the right and not the left?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bjlillo wrote:
TheLightSarcastic wrote:
Yeah, but that's only if those 3 to 18 future criminals are watching the execution story as it gets reported.

"Wait, there are negative consequences to murdering people? I better call Steve!"


Actually, that's 3-18 people per execution. If the news media expanded their coverage or if more states proceeded quickly with executions like TX, the numbers would likely be higher (if the studies' conclusions are to be believed.)


Countries without death penalty have just miraculously went through another day without murdering mobs out of control roaming their streets. Any day soon, however, any day soon...
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
HavocIsHere wrote:
Quote:
But if the US Government is going to be the purveyors of health care, and the controller of costs associated with it, will they use abortion (for the young) and eugenics (for the old) as a means of controlling poverty and crime?

Yeah. Giving access to healthcare for everyone is a plot to force abortion on the disgusting poor.


Quick cover your ears and eyes!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.