Most women who get abortions in the US are white.

[Nikki Stone 1]

Getting funding for poor women (of any color), for US military employees, and anyone else dependent on public funds has been very difficult at best. Basically abortion is still legal, but no one wants to fund it.

These attempts to link African-Americans to abortion seem deliberate to me. Fears of genocide are high in the AA community, especially after Katrina. The anti-abortion types are EXPLOITING that feeling to push their own agenda. They are truly evil in this.

[tompayne1]

1. They are truly evil

In many many ways.

[2Design]

2. that is why they want it to be illegal - they want more white --

has nothing to do with morality or their faux christian beliefs - this is like catholic church not wanting contraception - the faster growing groups on plant earth are non - white - these abortion foes want to change that -

Most AA never bought into the family planning thing - that is what was being pushed to try to curb growth - the people who did do family planning are white and the numbers are declining - soon they will truly be the minority -

[jaysunb]

3. Why do you think there's so much fuss over abortion ?

It sure as hell ain't to save black or brown babies.....

[tamtam]

4. Okay!!

This has nothing to do with morals and values. The same people throwing a fit about abortion are the same ones throwing a fit about immigration. This is all about fear, race and power. For some the color of their skin is all they have to make them feel important. For those people I say seek a shrink.

Op you are right on the money on this one. This is why their pro-live argument is flawed. They have no problem killing pregnant women in Iraq but god forbid a woman has an abortion in the United States, especially a white woman. Killing children in Iraq well that is a different story because they are brown and don't love gawd. These people try to rationalize their bias and it is quite funny to see them grasping for straws, pro-life my ass.

[Nikki Stone 1]

5. So you don't think this is about morality at all

I always sort of gave them that. Maybe I was wrong

[txaslftist]

23. It is about morality.

Pro-lifers, the vast majority of them, want abortions to stop. They think of the one or two million abortions each year as the equivalent of America's holocaust.

The more militant among them will do any outrageous thing to stop, delay, inhibit, discourage or otherwise prevent women from exercising the choice to abort.

You gotta cede the fact that it is a moral issue, not some code for white supremacy or fascism or taking away privacy or advancing some other power grab. Once you acknowledge that there is a moral issue behind it, then you can engage in a dialogue.

There is a moral issue behind alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs. That does not mean that prohibition works. You still have to have a discussion with people who believe prohibition works against drugs to come up with a way to reduce drug use among children.

[CAcyclist]

30. Its not a moral issue

Its about power and control. The anti-abortionists want to control what I do with my body. They want to tell me whether I can live or die ,too. The Terri Schiavo case should have laid that clear.

[txaslftist]

34. So you don't think there's a moral issue here at all?

Having an abortion is like popping a zit?

[CAcyclist]

37. I think being date-raped is a moral issue

I think abortion is my business and not yours.

[jaysunb]

42. Amen !

n/t

[txaslftist]

43. Whether you have an abortion is completely your business, true.

That doesn't mean I can't work and try to come up with other choices for you that enable you to make other choices. It also doesn't mean I should make your choice any easier by condoning it unconditionally.

I have three exceptionally beautiful and intelligent children. That's not just opinion, either (they take after their mother). My brother in law and his wife are childless and desperately trying to conceive.

I would prefer that someone who doesn't want a child but is pregnant (whether by choice or rape) have the option to carry the child to term and put the child up for adoption rather than abort. I would prefer that the adoption option be the easier choice.

There is a moral issue here. There is legitimacy to the position that a fetus is a human life. There is legitimacy to the position that abortions should be rare. There is legitimacy to the position that we should work, as a society, toward reducing abortion.

You may not agree with these positions, but to take the position that they have absolutely no validity is divisive, extreme and unfair. You can't lump all people who hold one or more of these positions into the same category as people who support the death penalty and favor illigitimate wars. First, because they aren't the same people, and secondly because by refusing to even consider the existence of a moral position beyond "they want to control me" you make your own position both extreme and inflexible.

[Scout]

46. you honestly think that women don't know this already?

I would prefer that someone who doesn't want a child but is pregnant (whether by choice or rape) have the option to carry the child to term and put the child up for adoption rather than abort. I would prefer that the adoption option be the easier choice.

And if she just plain does not want to be pregnant, much less give birth, well tough shit for her, 'cuz someone out there wants that baby, so breed for them bitch!

Of course a fetus is "human" ... women don't think they are pregnant with puppies.

[AlCzervik]

51. Who says a woman who has been raped or a victim of incest doesn't have

the option to carry that child? Have you read that somewhere or are you assuming that all victims of rape and incest automatically abort? Maybe someone who has been victimized does not want to go through being traumatized again so they opt for abortion and i'm sure some don't.

[really annoyed]

52. Self-Delete

:)

[CAcyclist]

69. No, you don't have anything to say to me.

Nothing. I'll make my own decisions about how to run my own life and not you, nor anyone else is going to tell me what to do. Your statement shows exactly how this issue is about power and control.

I think the most horrible thing in the world is for someone to be born who isn't wanted. Only wanted children should be born into this world.

[txaslftist]

70. Well you won't want to read this, then.

I have no problem with you making your own decisions about how to run your life. I recognize that at a time you had no money that you had an abortion and government assistance helped you to do that. I've already stated and won't rehash what I think about the money.

What I'm suggesting is that in your position, if the law was such that there was a couple willing to pay your room, board, tuition and medical expenses during the course of your pregnancy; that the university would have been required by law to re-enroll you after your term; and that your child would have gone to a home where he/she was very much wanted, that is information you could have used.

I am not against a woman's right to choose. I think women should have more choices and better choices. If a person with an unwanted pregnancy is given the choices as I've outlined and still chooses an abortion, that is her right. My disagreement with her decision is not prohibition, it's not even disapproval.

I do think that both the number and frequency of abortions in this country should be reduced. If for no other reason than to help heal the gigantic divide between those who call themselves 'prolife' and those who call themselves 'prochoice'.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaLL]

88. Definitely not about morality

If pro-lifers cared about reducing abortions, they would be committed enough to learn about what measures decrease abortions and what measures increase abortions. Most have not done this because the more genuine ones are supporting the policies that *increase* abortions while opposing the policies that *decrease* abortions.

If this were about morality for pro-lifers:

It's not about reducing abortions. If they cared about reducing abortions they would support education, family planning and improved resources for families.

It's not about safety. If they cared about women's lives or safety they would fight to keep abortion legal.

It isn't even about abstinence. If they cared about increasing the number of teens who are abstinent, they would support the programs that delay the onset of sexual activity (there are 7 comprehensive programs that do this) and oppose their own refuse-to-teach-contraception-abstinence-only programs (none of them has been evaluated and shown to increase abstinence).

They consistently do the opposite. The biggest obstacle to reducing the abortion rate in the US is the "Pro-Life" Movement.

[tamtam]

66. I'm not saying

that. For the woman, who is having the abortion, it very well may be a moral issue. I'm saying the morals are lost for most of those who oppose choice. You cannot claim to be pro-life and pro-war at the same time. The typical republican hypocrite will cry no abortion but they love war. Where is the morality in the double standard?. In my opinion anti-choice folks are motivated by control, power and sometimes race.

[xmas74]

78. It has nothing to do w/ morality and everything to do w/ race.

I remember taking a friend to get an abortion a few years back. We walked up to the clinic and there were protesters there. One of them kept grabbing at her arm, trying to keep her from going in(I stepped in and broke it up pretty fast). She said to my friend "Why would you want to kill your baby? I bet it'll have beautiful red hair like yours!" (obvious mind games there).
My friend informed the woman that there was no chance that it would turn out w/ red hair since it's father was black. Once she said this the protester screamed at her and told her that "baby" was an abomination and a freak of nature. We ran in the clinic as fast as we could(pretty hard since someone tried to stand in our way). She cried once we got into the clinic.

It's nothing to do w/ morality and everything to do w/ race. I'd bet that if the woman hadn't known that the "baby" would have been of mixed race she would have kept hassling my friend. And I bet I would have gone to jail for punching that b*tch in the face.

[beyurslf]

84. For most people, it is a moral issue. Maybe not the politician who is

using the issue to divide and get elected. But most people have very strong personal moral feeling about the issue. I know I do. They can say whatever they want about my reasons, but I know that I support this right because I believe in the fundamental right of a woman to control her body and make private decisions with her doctor without the government telling her what to do. It is a moral issue for me. And I know the many, many people who disagree on the other side have an equally strong moral opinion as well.
It is easy to say that someone who supports to the War or someone who supports the death penalty can't possibly be pro-life. I would agree that this seems like a paradox that can't reconciled. However, to them, this is not a conflict. They support the protection of the life that can't protect itself. I know we can argue that innocents in Iraq also can't protect themselves, but many of these people still think we are liberating them. They are surely wrong, but this is their true belief. We can disagree. We can fervently point out why they are wrong. We can even believe they are foolish, lazy thinkers, or just stupid. But to jump to the conclusion that they are just racist and have no moral conviction on the matter is just plain wrong.

[0007]

10. Tis just a stepping stone for political purposes

[MountainLaurel]

50. Just what I was thinking

Consider Bill Bennett's comments recently about how crime would plummet if more black babies were aborted.

[jobycom]

6. Of course it's deliberate, just as the filthy racist Katrina emails are

deliberate. The Repubs know they are losing everything, so they are trying to whip up a race war, just as Reagan did, to hold on to power. They circulate emails dehumanizing the people we saw suffering in New Orleans: "They are ungrateful, nasty people who are spoiled because they are on welfare. They are looters. They are criminals. You could reduce the crime rate by killing them all. They should be grateful we tolerate their existence." Just like the old segregationists did: "If you don't lynch a few of them, they'll sleep with our white women."

And if you don't think it's working, you're blind. I've had two older liberal Democrats tell me in the aftermath of Katrina that welfare has spoiled black people, that black people always bring up the race card because they just want to get their way. Both of these people were smart enough to know better. (And yes, I let them know my opinion of the matter).

The first Civil Rights movement was in the 1860s and 70s, and two major civil rights acts were passed barring discrimination and segregation even by private companies. Both were the rule of the land for a decade. Society was getting used to being integrated, street cars and theaters and restaurants were mostly accepting it, and the people were going along. There were black state legislators even in places like Mississippi and Alabama. But the Civil Rights Acts were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1883, and then segregation by the government was allowed in 1897 (?) with Plessy v Ferguson, and we lost it all.

We can lose it all again. That's the Republican strategy, because it will win the South for them, and win the fundies for them, and make the smaller government people happy (since they are linking blacks to social spending).

And here's the important part. Don't forget or ignore this part. Whites are becoming less than half the population in many states. Texas is one, and I suspect Florida is heading that way. If the Republicans lose Texas, they lose everything. They want to deny the black vote, to stay in power.

That's one of our battles. For the soul of the American dream.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Fabulous.

:applause:

[jobycom]

14. Awwww

:blush:

[AspenRose]

75. Well-said.

Thank you.

[zbdent]

7. And, traditionally, "welfare queens" are black

At least, that's the perception, too . . .

[King Coal]

8. That's because they all wear big hats.

They hate the sun.

[Balbus]

9. Hmmmm, weird.

I've never seen anything that ever linked African-Americans to abortions till this thread. :shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

11. Check out bill bennets comments of 9/28 on Media Matters-

he makes this connection disgustingly clear-

[Balbus]

18. Okay, I read it...

here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006

What he said was disgusting, but I still don't see where he made the connection that a African-American was more likely to get an abortion than a Caucasian. Could you paste the snip in that article that I'm missing that makes that inference?

edit: grammar

[txaslftist]

24. Bill Bennet doesn't represent every pro-life person, does he?

Is he their spokesperson or something?

[Balbus]

39. I have no idea.

Never heard of they guy until bluerthanblue kindly posted a link to his column a couple posts up.

[CAcyclist]

32. Umm, where he says "you can abort all the black babies and crime will go

down" - you don't understand that he's making the assumption that abortions are primarily done by black women? And, of course, the assumption that black people cause all the crime.

[Balbus]

38. I'm sorry, I fail to see the assumption. And you know what they say

about assuming.... :shrug:

And, of course, I'm referring to your statement of "you don't understand that he's making the assumption that abortions are primarily done by black women?" The second part of your statement I'd say is more fact than assumption.

[CAcyclist]

40. Then you just don't want to see nt

[Balbus]

41. And you want to see stuff that isn't there - nt

[patcox2]

58. No, I don't see that assumption at all.

What I see is a sophisticated criticism against using the lower crime rate associated with legal abortion as a justification for abortion. The point he is making is that suggesting the lower crime rate as a justification for abortion leads on a slippery slope to eugenics, an evil thing.

[Yupster]

92. Someone needs to do a cartoon

Of Bennett being held up by three African-American 18 month old toddlers in diapers. One, the gangleader should be smoking a cigar I think.

[Bluerthanblue]

91. sorry not to have

posted the link, or replied before now- I've been out for several hours.

The notion that the crime rate has declined as a result of abortions, and the distinction that Mr. bennett makes, with this comment:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. "

I believe the Original Poster was making the point that while the crime rate has gone down, the actual fact of the matter is, that more abortions occur in the white population. De-bunking the 'myth' that crime is more prevalent in any 'race'- the punishment, and stigmatization of those who break the law I believe is much more stridently pursued when the perpetrator is non-white, and less wealthy- but believe that if one actually could get 'true' facts, crime is an equal opportunity destroyer.- The 'little guys' are persecuted and profiled more often- but not necessarily representative of any more criminal activity because of race, ethnicity, or even lack of wealth.

Hope this makes sense, it's been a long day.

[BigMcLargehuge]

62. This is the same Bill Bennet that had the gambling problem...

and breast reduction surgery, right?

[myrna minx]

67. But some people say that Bill Bennett had breast reduction surgery

AND a gambling problem.

[NewJeffCT]

68. wasn't he also submitting to a dominatrix?

that story was going around, too. And, of course, I wouldn't repeat it if it weren't true.

[txaslftist]

13. "no one wants to fund it"

Call me a throwback, but why should I have to fund it if I don't agree with it?

Abortion is legal. Anyone can get it in any state. But why should the public pay for it?

Subsidizing abortion is a giant step beyond permitting it, and a step a lot of folks (myself included) don't want to take.

[FlaGranny]

15. One might say the same thing

about an emergency room visit for an indigent. Why should YOU fund it? Especially if that emergency room visit was by an addict or an alcoholic or maybe just some poor person who didn't work hard enough to be able to afford insurance.

You want to withhold medical care you don't agree with. It would make a lot more sense to prevent future problems. You can pay for an abortion, or you can pay for a prison cell for an adult who became a criminal due to lack of being wanted or cared for, or, at the very least one less child on welfare for you to pay for.

Of course, you could go right back to the beginning of everything and just take care of everyone without charge and PREVENT chronic problems in the first place - much cheaper in the end.

Or, then again, just keep everything for yourself.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. How about the childbirth expenses of a poor woman?

Some people may think she'd be better off having an abortion so why should their taxes go to fund something they don't agree with?

[txaslftist]

22. Childbirth expenses of poor women aren't funded.

Not unless she has insurance or goes to an emergency room. Even then they aren't funded. The hospital sends her a bill, puts her on a payment plan or accepts a default.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

36. Childbirth is covered, as is prenatal care.

If a person is below the required income level and pregnant in Texas, Medicaid covers their prenatal and childbirth expenses.

[txaslftist]

20. An ER visit is necessary to avoid a greater harm.

The person who is in emergency distress might die or suffer more grevious injury. None of that is true for someone seeking an abortion by choice.

I know there are abortions to save the life or health of a mother. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about why should I have to pay for an abortion for someone's "unwanted" pregnancy. It's an optional procedure. Why not make me pay for boob jobs and tummy tucks?

[prolesunited]

26. Yes, for a woman

having a abortion is *just* like a boob job or tummy tuck. :eyes:

[txaslftist]

27. I'm not saying it is "just" like a cosmetic procedure.

It cannot be an easy choice, I understand that. It is a traumatic thing to go through. I also understand that.

It is also an optional procedure. As in, not necessary to save a life. Ergo, a choice.

I should not have to pay for someone else's choice.

[prolesunited]

28. We pay for other people's choices

every day of our lives. It comes with being part of society, unless you want to set up your own little island civilization.

BTW, care to address me not wanting *my* tax money spent on carrying out the death penalty? That's a choice as well.

[txaslftist]

31. I don't want my money spent on the death penalty either.

I'd just as soon it wasn't spent on nuclear warheads, while we're at it.

I'm pretty consistent in not wanting my money spent on much by the government.

I accept that there are some things I have to pay for, like cops to keep burglars out of my house and the military to keep foreign enemies out of my country.

A privately sought out abortion is a choice. You have a right to it, but you don't have the right to make me pay for it. You have a right to smoke, but I don't have to buy your cigarettes for you if you are too poor to afford them.

[notadmblnd]

82. well lets take abortion out of it for a minute

Men are encouraged to have sex, insurance companies and the government will even provide assistance for men well past their ability, to continue impregnating women. Yet it's very rare that an insurance company or medicare program will provide assistance for women to prevent unwanted pregnency.

Tell me why it is ok for insurance companies and medicare to pay for drugs like viagra but not for birth control pills or depo shots? It's the same thing, power and control.

[DFWdem]

48. Why would it be much different?

If one doesn't believe life begins until after the baby exits the womb, as opposed to beginning at conception, why would an abortion be a traumatic experience for a woman?

[Hello_Kitty]

16. I'm childfree by choice and I get to pay taxes

So YOUR kids (if you have them) can go to school. I don't have a problem with it myself but if you check out a few childfree sites you will see many, many of my counterparts who don't agree with subsidizing other people's kids through their tax dollars. :shrug:

[txaslftist]

21. Okay.

I don't have a problem with that, either. My kids are in public school. Refund me my property taxes and I'd be more than happy to homeschool them or put them in private school.

[Scout]

44. well I'm tired of tax breaks for breeders ... why should my tax

dollars make it easier for people who want to breed to raise their kids? They didn't ask me first...

NO more credits, deductions for children!

:sarcasm:

[Igel]

72. Why should my kid's tax dollars go for paying social security

and medicare benefits for childless retirees and the infirm once he's working in 20 years?

If the childless can't save enough during their working years to pay for all their own retirement and medical/care-giver expenses, why should those who invested in the next generation do with less? Kids are expensive; without that financial burden, the childless should easily be able to fend for themselves.

NO more taxes on working-age people for to benefit the childless!

[Scout]

74. gee I guess you didn't see the :sarcasm:

you need some reading comprehension...

[Igel]

86. Sorry. I've known people who would have

written that without intending any sarcasm.

They resent when parents get off time for their kids, when they have to stay late when parents have to rescue the kids from day care, and so on, and so forth.

You got my stock answer. It usually shuts them up. And sometimes gets lobbed at the wrong person. :-)

[Hello_Kitty]

89. God forbid we childfree folks should want to have a life too.

We exist to pay taxes and work late for you. You know, I don't mind paying for public education at all and I really don't begrudge you the occasional day off to take care of your sick child. But how about cutting me some slack when I want to go to a concert, take a class, or care for MY sick relative or friend? Because quite frankly, the attitude I get from most of the parents I work with is that my life is easy and my needs don't count.

[Igel]

93. I'm a stay at home dad.

I'm sacrificing my career to raise kids that'll pay benefits for those who preferred concerts and job advancement. I'm fairly sure that the burden that children place on parents is far, far greater than the burden they place on you, because those with kids also have sick relatives and friends, and would also like to have time to go to concerts.

I can't tell what scum you work with, I'm sure you're in a much better position to sit in judgment of them. I mistakenly pointed out that a previous poster preferred to make tax-serfs out of others' offspring when they retire, and didn't spot the sarcasm.

Did I miss the sarcasm in your post, as well?

[patcox2]

55. They'll be breaking into your house and mugging you.

If they don't get an education. True fact.

Selfish shit.

[Hello_Kitty]

90. Hey! I didn't say I didn't want to pay for education!

I do. I was merely pointing out to the poster that people pay taxes for other people's kids and some may not agree with that. I have no problem whatsoever with my taxes going to public schools. I'd also have no problem with them funding abortions for poor women.

[Igel]

71. Consider it an investment.

At some point, you're likely to be collecting Social Security.

Even had every dollar been kept in a 'lock box', it would still largely be pay-as-you-go. In other words, your retirement benefits will be paid for by then-taxpayers, in all likelihood.

Also think of it in terms of services. At some point you and your age cohort will be retired. Yet you'll expect your trash picked up, your hospital staffed, and your grocery store stocked. You can pay for it by having public education now, or by having to pay them more later to pay back both their high school *and* their college loans. And any premium that those having scarce specialties might charge.

Later, your age cohort will have significant numbers of members that will not be able to fully care for themselves, probably you, at some point; in other words, somebody, younger and presumably moderately trained, will need to care for them ... and you.

View it as breaking from short-term views of self-interest. Depending on your age, it may be a 20-year time horizon. Maybe 40. Maybe 5.

[prolesunited]

25. Same goes with the death penalty

Call me a progressive, but why should I have to fund it if I don't agree with it?

The death penalty is legal. It can be federally mandated in any state. But why should the public pay for it?

Subsidizing the death penalty is a giant step beyond permitting it, and a step a lot of folks (myself included) don't want to take.

[txaslftist]

29. Wow... that's a disconnect on so many levels.

It's not even good as plain old sophistry.

The death penalty discriminates against the poor and minorities. It is not accurate. It is not fair. It is bullshit.

I absolutely oppose the death penalty, because government does not do it very well, and innocent people are killed by it.

Aside from the fact we're talking about a death, the government's death penalty and a private abortion have nothing to do with each other.

[CAcyclist]

35. Because the public benefits from it

Take me. I was a starving student when I had an abortion. I had to pay $200 to do it, which was a huge hardship because I was putting myself through school on a part-time job + student loans. However, because it was subsidized for low-income people , I didn't have to pay the full cost of $600-$800, which would have been impossible for me to have come up with. I might have had to drop out of school and may never have completed my degree. Thanks to being able to have the abortion, I was able to finish school and now I own my own business and contribute a goodly amount to the government, as well as providing jobs for 2 people.

You can moralize all you want, but if my taxes have to cover emergency room visits for people who are stupid enough to drive too fast and endanger the rest of us, then you damn well have to pony up for procedures you don't agree with.

[really annoyed]

49. Self-Delete

:)

[txaslftist]

64. You shouldn't have to 'fund' any viewpoint, period.

I guess I really offended some people here by stating a 'contraversial' opinion. I am of the view that there are an alarmingly high number of elective abortions in this country. I am not a fundamentalist, I'm not anti-choice, and I'm not particularly religious.

I don't like paying for services I don't use that in my opinion do not benefit society at large. That, in my opinion, includes purely elective abortions.

I don't believe that society as a whole benefits from "unconditional abortion without counselling on demand for anyone of any age regardless of parental wishes". I don't see a problem with counselling being a condition of getting an abortion for underage mothers. I don't see a problem with letting a mother know that there is a childless couple somewhere willing to pay room and board for a year, all medical expenses, and all legal fees for the privilege of adopting a child.

It does not necessarily follow from believing that abortion is your choice and your right that I want to fund it. You have the right to own a gun. I think society benefits from an armed citizenry. I'm not paying for your gun.

[Scout]

76. you might possibly have a leg to stand on

"unconditional abortion without counselling on demand for anyone of any age regardless of parental wishes"

if this was actually happening anywhere....

[Josephine]

19. They should be ashamed

Evil people without souls, without God, and without a conscience.

[Fleshdancer]

33. Must be very nice to be able to throw the first stone

good for you for being absolutely perfect Josephine.

[Josephine]

53. I'm not perfect

But I do know that exploiting black American's completely justifiable anxieties is wrong. If calling it that is throwing the first stone, then so be it.

[really annoyed]

56. Self-Delete

Josephine, WELCOME TO DU!!!!!

:party:

[jus_the_facts]

57. I think Gloria and I both misunderstood your intent there....

...I had to go back and reread the OP to realize I mistook your statement as against people who'd had abortions. :hide:

Sorry Josephine...and Welcome to DU.:hi:

[jus_the_facts]

47. self delete....

[Opusnone]

45. CONDOMS WILL SAVE THE WORLD!

[patcox2]

54. There's nothing right-wing about the data, the evidence is real.

I don't know why, actually, anyone is jumping on Bennet. Has anyone read Freakanomics? There is nothing right wing about it. The corelation between legalization of abortion and the decrease in the crime rate is there even after careful controls to elminate other factors. The relationship has been fairly well-known from some european studies.

Its not a racial thing. The study notes that children of very young mothers, children of single mothers, children of poor mothers, and children who are not wanted (and thus tend not to be treated as well by parents) are more likely to become criminals. There is nothing shocking or immoral in the premise, unwanted children are more likely to become a problem to society than wanted children, people who don't want children usually have a good reason for their decision.

Bennet was indelicate when he took this observation and noted that aborting all black fetuses would lower the crime rate. Sorry, but as a matter of mathematics, it would. Anyone who doesn't understand the statistics or the math on this is illiterate. It doesn't matter that more white women have abortions. Blacks, for various reasons (poverty, racism, poverty, poverty, and poverty are my top contenders) make up a disproportionate percentage of criminal offenders. As a mathematical exercise, if you remove the black population from your stats, the crime rate would be lower.

Bennet did not advocate or approve of that in any way, in fact, he was pointing out only that using the reduced crime rate resulting from legalized abortion as a justification for abortion could lead in the direction of eugenics.

Its twisting and misleading to read his statements any other way.

I hate when conservatives twist what liberals say to make them look bad, and I equally abhor what I perceive as dishonesty, ignorance, or self-deception that has so many here twisting thr meaning and intent of what Bennet said.

[txaslftist]

59. But you gotta admit it was a pretty dumbass thing to say...

[really annoyed]

63. Thank You!

I'm sorry I was so harsh to you on my other posts...

I take it all back! I had to rethink what you posted before, and I actually agreed with some of it. I am so sorry... Please forgive me!

PM me sometime! :)

[really annoyed]

60. Cute

You've just admitted that all blacks born into difficult circumstance are criminals. So I take it that white women never give birth to children in these circumstances?

It's attitudes like this that make me want to run back to the pro-life movement.... But I won't though, too many conservatives!

[Igel]

73. That's not what the poster in #54 said.

Sometimes people are upset at how the numbers break, and decide the numbers are wrong or mean something other than what they mean.

People--black, white, and everything in between--born into difficult circumstances and who are unwanted *tend* to criminality. Not all.

Eliminating that entire group would reduce criminality significantly; but not entirely. Eliminating any subgroup would reduce criminality. Eliminating all the children from any other set of people with a sufficient number of members in that group would also reduce criminality. It's just how the stats and proportions play out.

Nothing in this topic is 'none' and 'all', and how things are phrased is frequently crucial.

Even the original poster is both right and wrong. Whites still make up the largest component of the US's population, and so most abortions are by white women. But they're underrepresented in abortion statistics, no matter how you cut it, I think. The issue of absolute percentages and percentage compared to percentage of population crops up in everything from serial murder profiles to the Catholic sex abuse scandal.

For 2000: "In the 41 areas for which race was adequately reported, approximately 55% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to be white, 35% were black, and 7% were of other races; for 3% of the women, race was unknown. (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births). Additionally, the abortion ratio for women of other races (329 per 1,000 live births) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (30 per 1,000 women) was 3.1 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000 women), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (22 per 1,000 women) was 2.2 times the rate for white women."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

[jmm]

77. There's a big difference between

removing the black population from stats and aborting all black fetuses. The first may show a statistical difference but the later would create a void that other people would fill so really the crime rate would be the same.


Saying aborting black babies would reduce crime would be like saying there is something intrinsically wrong with blacks if you factor in income, the racist ways in which many laws are applied, etc. that black people still would commit more crimes and are bringing this country down and making it a poorer more dangerous place.

[ultraist]

81. Oh, please. It was blatantly racist!

Are you actually denying the obvious racism in that filthy pig's statement? For real? :wow:

[Seansky]

61. in this? there are so many issues they treat like this (no that I don't

give importance to this issue) but look at health care coverage for children and elderly, regardless of race, or the environment protection, or access to education.

My point is that their discriminating actions recognize no color, race or age.

[Bryn]

65. It is True according to Pat Robertson's book

that I read several years ago. I can't remember the title. I was staying with Mom on my vacation and she had me read his book which I did. In it, he said because so many whites were having abortions and blacks rarely did, we'd (whites) be in the minority, black population would grow and grow in USA.

[Cleita]

80. Seems it's time to push for more women's rights.

This time it's about confidentiality in any medical procedure that involves women's reproductive health. I think there should be a law that puts any medical procedure done to a women be between she and her doctor, sealed from any other access except with the written approval of the woman who received the medical procedure or help.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DanCa]

85. It's all guilt punishment guilt

When I was studying to be a Deacon they excummunicated me for refusing to take pictures of women entering abortion clinics. The local church wanted to shame these women by placing thier picture in the local paper as way of giving them a modern scarlet letter. When I refused the church board went berserk. I was so upset by this that I lost my voice for three days, and was diagnosed with a mild stroke.
Now it turns out five years later I have young onset parkinsons. Coeincidence? You tell me.
Now I am not a big fan of abortion, and I am what you call pro neutreal on the subject. I believe that it should be a) legal and no one has the right to interfere in the provedure. I also believe that anyone has the right to protest on thier own private property without harassing anyone. But as far as me being a man and going down there and yelling at and bullying a woman its ludicrious. I have no power or control over anyone elses life or death decisions. I dont know if theres an under lying medical condition or what not behind her condition and am not kreskin so i cant psychically come up with the answer.
As a man my only responsibilty is to tell the woman no and not to get them pregnant in the first place. And then theres the whole cult like feel and right to practice religion issues which dont sit well with me either. So as you can see theres a whole plethora of issues why i can't be involved in the anti choice movement.

[Disturbed]

87. Same old lame debate about abortion here and elsewhere.

I skim through these. When I brought up "Not enuff white people being born" statement a few years ago as one the reasons the RW is anti-abortion, a few people thought my theory was wak. Now, more people agree with that theory.