Ginsburg supports my theory on liberalism and eugenics.

[Timothy W.]

I need a radio show. I'm getting too good at this.

The day before yesterday I was attacked for making the assertion that the many of the roots of modern liberalism (in both parties - liberalism is not just about Democrats) can be found in early 20th century eugenics. One obvious link is Planned Parenthood - a product of the eugenics movement, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

But just today we have another! A surprising admission by Clinton appointee and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'll just quote her here and let you read her words:

"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 Roe V. Wade, a "victory" for liberals everywhere is about population control. Specifically "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Where have we heard that before? Maybe I should quote the logo of the Second International Eugenics conference, "Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution." I'm also curious as to who the "we' is that decides what populations we want to "limit"?

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

Oh Tim....you silly conservative. You don't have any idea of what eugenics or science is about.... You're just an Obama hater who can't think for himself....

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by nationwidepi:

Originally posted by Tim:

we won't be bothered by anymore of his condescending posts intended merely to ignite conflict.

In all fairness, this thread (that you started) was to ignite more conflict. Anyone can see that from your post.

Of course part of my intention was to start conflict in the form of debate (sprouted from another thread) and bring to light something people needed to see. You can't deny I did quote a liberal Supreme Court Justice here. It's not like I came up with her quote myself. There is a difference between that and being condescending with the mere intention of making conflict.

I guess also this makes me think of Mike's thread, "What are you willing to fight for?". Inevitably we must all choose some conflicts, and I think fighting against eugenicists who would try to legislate (technically not legislate as it's case law, which is another issue) reproductive rights under the guise of "choice" is one worthy of choosing.