Posted on 01/04/2015 7:23:58 PM PST by Morgana
“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. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
William Bennett, CNN
Cathcart, C. D. “CNN, the real “WB” network” Afro – American Red Star 2006
Not only is this comment extremely racist, making false assumptions about the African-American community, it illustrates a type of proabortion thinking that focuses on eliminating problems by eliminating human beings.
You are an impossible person. I am on your side and you refuse to acknowledge it. You are implacable, people can’t even agree with you on a larger issue if they don’t agree with you about another fact that has no bearing on the main point in agreement.
I really can’t talk to you anymore. You can’t even accept that we’re in agreement about the main point.
if you aborted all white babies, the crime rate would go down also, and there would be more black-on-black crime,owing to the dearth of white victims,so actually the crime rate might go UP.
if you aborted all white babies, the crime rate would go down also, and there would be more black-on-black crime,owing to the dearth of white victims,so actually the crime rate might go UP.
Within a single generation, this DNA ID record keeping in medical records would prove both paternity and because everyone's DNA is on file, solve rapes, murders and other crimes.
This is how you solve the debt for welfare mothers, by proving the father; this is how you solve numerous crimes, thus preventing crime in advance. This is how we make fathers support their children and raise them to have the dream of bettering themselves and their lives.
Or we can segregate ourselves once again based on Community as whites, latinos, asians, etc., based on the Black experiment.
I already did agree on the main point.
But that does not make Bennett’s statement true one iota. The cure for evil is not more evil.
“it illustrates a type of proabortion thinking that focuses on eliminating problems by eliminating human beings.”
This is THE foundational reason behind the pro-abortion movement. And BLACKS were and are the target.
DID I NOT SAY THAT?!?!?
Go away.
If you did, I must’ve missed it; I apologize if so. Perhaps I focused too strongly on the claim that abortion reduces crime and overlooked it?
Post 60 and every post I’ve said abortion is murder. Yes you are fixated to the point you don’t give a crap when someone believes the same thing you do. You want to keep fighting about a side point that I have said MULTIPLE TIMES HAS NO BEARING ON WHY I AGREE WITH YOU.
I can’t understand why you’re so devoted to the cause of showing how wrong Bennett was, when in fact he was on your side! He was responding to the study in the book Freakonomics that discussed the effects that abortion has had on this country. That study was based on real numbers, and the authors were able to show through statistical analysis that indeed, the prevalence of abortion had resulted in a reduced crime rate, as poor communities that have a much higher propensity for crime are most affected by abortion. Incidentally, the same study suggested that liberals were shooting themselves in the foot by their support of abortion, because the aborted babies would have been overwhelmingly liberal (since they were aborted by overwhelmingly liberal parents) and so liberals were, in effect, limiting their own numbers by aborting a large number of their future voters.
Bennett, in effect, was saying “so what?” to the results of that study. Like any true conservative, he believes in the POTENTIAL of any life, and doesn’t think that the statistical likelihood that aborting all of the babies in the highest crime group would result in a reduction in crime in the future (as has been shown to have occurred by the study results) outweighs the potential value that each one of those lives holds.
Why are you beating your head against the wall to make a bad guy out of one of your strongest allies?
“Freakonomics’” assertions on abortion are a pack of lies; it was written by a University of College professor and a New York Slimes columnist, so I do not see how it could have any credibility whatsoever.
Claiming to solve evils by using evil is a false claim, and Bennett said that in an unforced way. It does undermine his anti-abortion credentials, because one just does not say that. I’m not saying it’s unforgivable, mind you.
“University of College” = University of Chicago.
Nobody claimed that abortion was a solution for evil. It was a simple statistical analysis that showed that crime had, in fact, gone down as a result (directly or indirectly) of abortion in poor communities, and especially in poor black communities. Some would use that as an argument FOR abortion. At the time the book came out that was a discussion topic in the national media. Bennett was speaking out AGAINST that line of thinking.
One could easily say “what if Hitler had been aborted? Wouldn’t the world have been a better place?” 99% of liberals would say “YES - that’s a GREAT argument for abortion!” Bennett was arguing that no, even though aborting Hitler would potentially (likely) have prevented all of his future atrocities, that still wouldn’t justify the evil of abortion.
You need to re-think your approach here. You’re attacking your friends.
I do not trust a study by a NY Times reporter and a University of Chicago professor that attempts to show abortion somehow reducing crime. It is far more likely that other factors would be the cause of crime falling, utterly unrelated to abortion.
Bennett’s wording is unambiguous, though. I am not attacking anyone, least of all Bennett, but the man ought to have known his facts better rather than having made such a statement, because claiming such an act as aborting all black babies would heavily reduce crime and subsequently stating never to advocate for same still indicates a belief that the act would indeed reduce crime—even worse, perpetuating such an act against innocents rather than the guilty.
So, go to my hypothetical, then. Would aborting Hitler have reduced future crime? Would it have prevented the atrocities of Nazi Germany?
No. The god of this world would have found another human conduit.
Remember that the notion of killing a child to prevent possible future crimes he may commit is a theme of the Koran too; note Sura 18:74 and 18:80-81.
Then why did Hillary’s hero Magaret Sanger,founder of planned parenthood who founded it to do that very thing,she said so,so why is Hillary not held to.account?
You are just ridiculous. Please, find another site where you can argue with people who you actually disagree with.
Why is it that those that insist on believing the assertions of liberals in “Freakonomics” have to fall to liberal tactics?
I guess not all of us are smart enough to figure “God’s Wrath” into our calculus. Sorry.
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.