Posted on 07/11/2009 7:13:53 AM PDT by kellynla
I think it is quite credible that she supported ‘choice’ both ways all along and so was against any coercive eugenic factors. Doesn’t mean I agree with just about any of her positions on the court, and yes, she was an uber-hypocrite, as so many liberals are, re: AA and her own hiring.
Kind of like being a witchdoctor with a copy of Beck's Obstetrics just so she can get the babies through the birthcanal anyway.
Ruthy turns out to be the cannibal many of us always thought her to be.
My only point was this interview doesn’t demonstrate that she is ‘pro-eugenics’—whether she is or is not.
Some issues are simply too important to be able to take the position that "well, I sure wouldn't do it, but if others want to, well, that's the way it is".
As we recall that's what's so incredibly hilarious about the "I've never killed an abortionist, but I'm certainly not going to impose my morality on others" that was recently quoted by Ann Coulter (much to the distress of the Leftwingtards).
There’s just nothing particular to hold onto for that in this article, is all I’m saying—and now I’ve probably said it more than enough. Obama is the more-live threat right now than an soon-to-retire SCJ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.