|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 10, 2009 16:09:31 GMT -5
Holy crap..... did Madame Justice Ginsburg really say what they say she said? Because if she did.... thats a problem for the leftist elite as they are no longer are going to be able to deny (as they often do) the history and writings of the likes of the overtly racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, to name just one.
[/url]
Friday, July 10, 2009
By Christopher Neefus
CNSNews.com) – In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
<< snipped >>
Her comment about her belief that the court had wanted to limit certain populations through abortion came after the interviewer asked Ginsburg: “If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist agenda?” [/quote]
I am presuming that the leftist elite will start the howls that the learned justice was off her meds before the day is out.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 10, 2009 16:16:45 GMT -5
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is just channeling Margaret Sanger.
Ladies, keep your weapons handy.
There's a govt. population czar at the door, and he wants to look at your womb.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 10, 2009 16:51:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 10, 2009 17:06:11 GMT -5
Weee even with "the whole context" ....
It doesn't change at all what she said.......and what she meant....
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 10, 2009 17:10:46 GMT -5
Honorable?
Tell that to millions of dead babies.
Ghoul.
Everything about the pro-abortion campaign has been a lie from day one.
From the back-alley coathanger bullshit(a convenient emotional myth)to "govt. is not in the business of funding abortion on demand", it has all been a crock.
God is watching us, "whether we like it or not".
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 10, 2009 17:11:59 GMT -5
In context, it is obvious what she meant. She was talking about not wanting an increase in children whose parents were not ready for a child (for whatever reason) and wanted to have an abortion but couldn't, due to financial or geographic restraints. When parents don't want a child, that child is not raised with the same love and care that a wanted child receives. Common sense. It is just like sleazy Republicans to twist the honorable Justice's words out of context.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 10, 2009 17:24:46 GMT -5
It is just like sleazy Republicans to twist the honorable Justice's words out of context. I left something more honorable behind in the shitter this morning. Don't you dare speak to me about honor you twit. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 10, 2009 17:28:45 GMT -5
Parents have no right to kill their children; wanted or not.
It is so you to twist Buzzi's words to mean what you think won't make you(or her)seem like a bloody butcher.
"We didn't want to have a child right now, so we killed her. We're so glad the govt. paid for her death. Now we can afford that new Smart Car".
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Jul 10, 2009 18:07:09 GMT -5
Big Dog, it would have been better if you had posted the comment in context instead of cutting and pasting from your biased conservative news source. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "Right Wing," "Neo-Conservative" or "Biased Source" where you are concerned. Thankfully, not everyone is as biased as you are and judge their sources much better then you do. God forbid someone actually report the news based on their perspective, rather then yours. About UsThe Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission. Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news." In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues. CNSNews.com has a full staff of credentialed journalists at its world headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, staffs full time news bureaus in Jerusalem and the Pacific Rim, and works with credentialed correspondents in London, Paris, Moscow and Nairobi. In addition to news, CNSNews.com is proud to present a full slate of commentaries by some of the brightest minds and sharpest wits in the nation, and a full stable of cartoonists to provide you with a morning political chuckle. CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center, a not-for-profit 501 (c)(3) organization. Like National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, CNSNews.com is able to provide its services and information to the public at no cost, thanks to the generous support of our thousands of donors and their tax-deductible contributions. However, unlike NPR or PBS, CNSNews.com does not accept any federal tax money for its operations. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Jul 10, 2009 18:09:26 GMT -5
In context, it is obvious what she meant. She was talking about not wanting an increase in children whose parents were not ready for a child (for whatever reason) and wanted to have an abortion but couldn't, due to financial or geographic restraints. When parents don't want a child, that child is not raised with the same love and care that a wanted child receives. Common sense. It is just like sleazy Republicans to twist the honorable Justice's words out of context. It is just like a leftist to kill and unwanted child, rather then put it up for adoption to a loving family who wants the child so they can raise it in a loving and caring enviroment. Personally, I think the leftists are worse because they destroy life. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 10, 2009 18:19:18 GMT -5
In context, it is obvious what she meant. She was talking about not wanting an increase in children whose parents were not ready for a child (for whatever reason) and wanted to have an abortion but couldn't, due to financial or geographic restraints. When parents don't want a child, that child is not raised with the same love and care that a wanted child receives. Common sense. It is just like sleazy Republicans to twist the honorable Justice's words out of context. If all of American's orphens were being adopted and there was high demand for more, I would say you have a point. However, once again, reality doesn't support your opinion. Try again. It is just like a leftist to kill and unwanted child, rather then put it up for adoption to a loving family who wants the child so they can raise it in a loving and caring enviroment. Personally, I think the leftists are worse because they destroy life. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 10, 2009 18:25:47 GMT -5
"There are still children waiting to be adopted, so we should kill all the new ones".
What kind of sick, twisted butcher are you?
My mistake, you have already explained it.
All of us will be called to answer for our actions(and inactions)in time.
At that point, it will be just a tad too late for you to "try again".
In time we will overturn Roe and send it back to the people to decide.
That very concept must terrify you.
Good.
|
|
