Friday, July 24, 2009

Justice Ginsburg, Who are "We"?

Jews are less than 1% of the population of Planet Earth. There is no reason that Jews should be subject to populations control laws, because we are not in any danger of being "overpopulated," as this blog mentioned recently. Yet most non-orthodox Jewish women submit to leftist "population control" guidelines by limiting the number of children they have to less than replacement numbers. Mainstream Judaism even claims that there's nothing wrong with abortion, an opinion with which I am vehemently in disagreement, primarily because the vast majority of abortions aren't done for reasons of rape, incest or true life-threatening illness of the wife. Most are done by unmarried women who simply want to conceal their promiscuous lifestyle from the world.

Of course, Ginsburg and other liberal wackos might agree that these are exactly the types of women whose fertility needs to be permanently damaged. "They" don't want any more of "those" people, that's the reason they pushed so hard for legalization of baby-killing in the first place - strictly for reasons of eugenics. It had little to nothing to do with any real concern about "privacy."

The Daily Grind (received by email)
Open Source and Copyright Free
Justice Ginsburg, Who are "We"?
July 24th, 2009
By Victor Morawski

Last week we took note of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's surprising, even shocking, observation that she thought abortions should be used to rid ourselves of "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This week, it is equally important to ask who, precisely, she thinks the "we" are who don't want too many of the undesirable populations around. And it is, perhaps, even more important to examine what she and her ilk think Big Government's role is in the sordid mix.

When we follow their trail, what begins to emerge is a picture of a group of liberal elitists, Justice Ginsburg among them, who viewed legalized abortion as a means not only of granting women their "right to privacy," but as a vehicle for furthering the end of eugenics, as a way by which to rid society of just those types of people the Ginsberg "we" do not want "too many of."

Here two threads, when followed, will amply illustrate eugenics as the main impetus behind Roe v. Wade...

... In a 1996 letter to Betsey Wright of the Clinton Transition Team, Ron Weddington's strong racist advocacy of eugenics surfaced unmistakably. Writing in support of R U 486 [the morning after pill] Weddington argued for its quick approval as, "26 million food stamp recipients is more than the economy can stand."

He argued that Clinton's success as a reformer needed a "better educated, healthier, wealthier population" [the goal of eugenics]. To this end, he told him, "you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."

...That eugenics, not a woman's supposed "Right to Choose," was the guiding motivation behind their push for decriminalization can be seen from the motivations of its founder, Margaret Sanger, a forceful crusader for it.

Indeed, Ms. Sanger's motto for the movement she founded was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit." And there's not much doubt who the "we" is in that formula.

Her successors have also openly claimed to carry on Sanger's legacy. On what would have been Sanger's 100th birthday, then PP president Faye Wattleton, declared that the organization is very proud of the mission given them by their "courageous leader"---a "grand mission" of which "abortion is only the tip of the iceberg." (Presumably, furthering eugenics is below the water line on that iceberg)...

In words strikingly similar to Weddington's, she argued against the creation of large families, claiming that "breeding too many children" is "the most immoral practice of the day." Because of the lower quality of life a child will experience in a large family, she maintained that, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

And what, then, following this line of reasoning do "we" do if they decide not to kill it on their own? Well, that, according the Ruth Bader Ginsberg, is where Big Government comes in, deciding for the rest of us how to rid ourselves of "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Margaret Sanger never imagined that a middle class or wealthy white woman would ever want to have an abortion - and we can throw "christian" into that mix, too. The enlightened European religious and ethnic culture is the only culture they deemed worth preserving - all the rest should be discouraged and if not actively then at least covertly stamped out. Antisemitism is alive and well in the highest echelons of the liberal elites. Having less Jews in the world to annoy them on issues like Israel is something they would like to see happen. The days are gone when Jewish people and Judaism were considered minorities worth protecting - the days of tolerance and multiculturalism are passing away.

That last link in the article is one every orthodox Jewish family should read, because this has become the prevailing PC position of the media and wider culture today. It has not taken it long, really, to percolate through western philosophy. The environmentalist wackos of the 60s and 70s are now the CEOs of "green" companies today and are in charge of formulating government policy now, as we saw in yesterday's post. "The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society," said Sanger. And members of both the UN an the Obama administration agree.

And in their minds, Jews are a nuisance to the whole world now, not just Europe. If it weren't for the Jews, all the trouble in the Middle East would just go away, they think. So don't expect the American government to be any friend to large Jewish families. All those kids might want to make Aliyah someday.

No comments: