Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spouts in a new interview.
“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people,” Ginsburg says.
Previously, Justice Ginsburg … who worked in a majority black city (Baltimore) and never once hired a black person to work in her legal practice… had this to say about the role of abortion in keeping brown people in their place.
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.
I imagine her after that coughing into her hand while muttering “Blacks.”
All of which takes us back to the mother of the philosophy of “Birth control for populations we don’t want too many of,” Margaret Sanger (who is revered to this day by Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Party).
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 don’t want the 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.
OK, I’ll bite.
While I object strongly to encouraging abortion to reduce the number of dependent mouths, I see no problem with encouraging the poor to not reproduce (in numbers they cannot afford – people have every right to have as many children as *they can afford*… myself, I’m tapped out).
I’ve always found it strange that conservatives, who rail against welfare, have a problem with efforts to reduce the number of people needing welfare while progressives, who advocate ever-larger welfare programs, also want to reduce births among the poor.
Dysgenics is a reality and not desirable (see “Idiocracy” which is closer to truth than most of us are comfortable with).
Myself, I don’t care what color someone’s skin is if they are of good character and able to support themselves (obviously there are exceptions – babies born with serious birth defects and so on that we care for because they’re fellow human beings). But the idea that we can keep adding more riders on the wagon without having the mules give up is wrong.
The video from Ferguson (certainly not unique) shows thousands of people we’re paying for who are, frankly, unemployable. And, yes, there are pockets of white people who are not employable. These numbers are growing as it is. Is it wrong of me to think the brakes need to be applied?
Abortion aside, I find myself sympathetic to the idea of eugenics. Genetics plays a huge part in human populations – just like all other animals. The problem with eugenics (which was popular among progressives in the early 20th century) is that we don’t get to decide how desirable and “undesirable” are defined. Given that fact, I’d be happy with simply not enabling dependency.
I’m for keeping abortion available to the financially poor members of our society who want them. And, abortion restrictions always hit them first.
I don’t like anyone saying that one should only have the kids they can afford. It presumes that money is more important than love. What kids need most is a mother and a father who truly love them. They can do without the material things.
Obviously, those who get pregnant just so they can collect welfare don’t truly love their children.
One thing which must also be remembered is that Margaret Sanger was not only a strong proponent of abortion, she was also one of the strongest supporters of the development of The Pill. I blame her as one of those primarily responsible for the breakdown of the family, as marriage became simply a legal document allowing two adults to have sex, rather than the foundation upon which a family grows.
I don’t like anyone saying that one should only have the kids they can afford.
I don’t like the idea that some Government bureaucrat should decide who is and who is not allowed to have children.
If we want to discourage the poor and parasitical from breeding, solution is simple; stop paying poor people to not work and have babies. Most of them will figure out for themselves how to stop reproducing.
Thank you, V the K. You said it better than I could.
There is another point here that is often overlooked. With the breakdown of the family came a reduction in the reproductive rate, mostly of the affluent nations, the U.S. and Europe (note that this sentence shows the need to use the Oxford comma, as constantly avoiding it would make you assume that the U.S. and Europe are not affluent nations. But I digress.). The population in Europe is actually declining, except amongst muslims there, where it is skyrocketing.
Any society that does not promote the baring and raising of children will be replaced by one that does by sheer numbers if by no other means.
I’m not sure the Leftists (progressives/communists/liberals/Democrats) understand that the conservatives & (actually) the rest of the world see the US Left’s obsession with race as a joke. Considering that the US has polled to be one of the least likely places to have a race problem on the planet.
It’s always going to be about race, with Libs; when they’re afraid.
Also Marc, the leftiod bastions always test out as the racist places in the nation … iirc Boston holds the record as America’s Most Racist City.
Now, I am not trying to make Margaret Sanger out to be a forgotten saint for the pro-life movement, and there are many out there who might disagree with her on even contraception. Nevertheless, she did not condone abortion, and it appears she was even revolted by the procedure. In fact, Planned Parenthood itself did not offer abortions until the mid-to-late 1960s, once she had died.
So, for all of Margaret Sanger’s many issues and flaws, even she appears to have had some sort of standards.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/
One of feminisms problems is it ignores biology. It sends smart women to college to get debt then careers during their top reproductive years. When women hit 30 their bio clock goes off, but after 35 fertility drops like a rock with a 5% chance of natural preg at 40. Unlike men who produce fresh sperm continuously, women are born with all the eggs they will ever have so as they get older the eggs get cumulative doses of radiation, toxins & any other bad things that happen to the body.
Couple this with the culture of East Asians and whites to not have more kids than they can afford to raise well and high IQ people become a smaller part of the world. Whites are down to 8% of the world population, but if they stopped sending food and medicine to the 3rdworld it would go up considerably.
We should not subsidize more than 2 children per woman with taxpayers money because that means women with careers are having to pay for Shaniqua’s 21 illegitimate crack babies (NJ actually has such a woman). The left hate the Drugar’s despite the fact they are self sufficient, make their own soap, & grow a large amount of their food but they would clutch their pearls if you showed them an article about the 21 crack baby moma.
Hello again, everyone. I’ve returned after taking a break to clear my head.
I think part of my helplessness and cynicism was a feeling of impotence that I did not even realize I had: the worst will happen because I can’t do anything to stop it. Now, however, I’ve linked up with a libertarian group on campus that is very involved on campus and does a lot of clever activism and awareness. I think I’ve firmly made the leap from “conservative with libertarian impulses” to conservatarian or even full-fledged right-libertarian.
rusty is correct, Sanger hated abortion. To clarify her view on races: Sanger kind of saw each race/ethnicity like a dog breed: each one with different strengths and temperament. To her, each race had the potential to become great; however, the “unfit” members of each group (read: the unintelligent and poor) did not have the resources or knowledge to intelligently cultivate their “blood” (19th century parlance for genes) or prevent bad “blood” from spreading. Sanger had no problem with intelligent and cultured blacks- I think she may have even flirted with the idea of interracial marriage- but to her, a far greater percentage of blacks had to be discouraged from having kids than whites.
Welcome back, Sean. Thanks for pointing out some of the facts about Sanger… without the taint of Nazi-style eugenics, eugenics makes sense.
As said, I do not believe abortion is a moral means of eugenics and I certainly don’t believe that people should need permission to have babies (it’s not hard at all to imagine a gov. agency denying “breeding permits” to, say, evangelical Christians or members of the NRA). That said, I do wish we could figure out some way of encouraging those unable (or, worse yet, unwilling) to be proper parents to abstain from having children. Enabling bastardy (not a PC term) might make the liberal elites feel good about themselves but it’s certainly no favor to the kids who live that reality (see the story from OK this weekend about the 11-year old girl forced to shoot her mother’s latest squeeze who, despite a restraining order(!!) broke in and stabbed the woman).
I think it was Charles Murray who observed that, despite its advocacy for life without morals, the elites tend to maintain to mostly traditional lifestyles for themselves. The Obamas are race radicals but it’s hard to imagine them being OK with their daughters shacking up with a playa.
VtK: I agree that not paying poor people to not work and to have babies would be a solution but it’s not ever likely to happen. Even I, a hard-hearted bastard with race-realist tendencies, would not tolerate babies starving in the streets.
@ KCRob: Funny you mention the traditional morals of liberals. My libertarian group did a bake sale to raise awareness about marijuana legalization, so we sold brownies, which we transported in kitchen pots (get it?). Several people who I know to be die-hard liberals seemed shocked or off-put by our move.
@Sean – and that’s another problem I have with liberals – no sense of humor.