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.
He wasn't "agreeing" he was using their own statistics to refute the notion that areas with high abortion rates have lower rates of crime.
“He’s the host of “Morning in America” right now; he served as Reagan’s second-term Secretary of Education and as Bush 41’s drug czar.”
So who cares what he says? Why do you bring him up?
I posit that, in a sane universe, that the "false assumption" unsupported assertion is open to serious challenge.
It may be "racissss", but there is more than a germ of truth here.
Who can honestly say that the inner city crime wave going on for the last few decades would be going on if some of the post civil war advocates of relocation of slaves back to Africa had their way?
How is that different from forced restricting negro population growth by abortion? The negro population is blatantly using breeding as a way of increasing welfare income.
I wasn’t disagreeing. You may want to take a break from FR for awhile.
Your statement is fake naive. You know exactly why it would.
It would reduce future crime. And you know it would. And you know why it would. Because you know the demographic that gets most urban abortions, and you know what group is also the one that is the most fatherless and grows up as urban ferals that commit a large portion of urban crime. With a large part of those crimes against others in their own race.
I would say the more black abortions, the greater the reduction in future crimes against other blacks. They are affected the most by black crime. Even Jesse Jackson knows as a black man, it’s safer for him to be around whites, rather than blacks.
But again, you seem to ignore that in no way does it make abortion justified. I don’t say it does. The two truths are what they are and can be stated independent of another.
But the statement not factual, and is inherently pro-abortion, using a false study as a basis. Why did Bennett instead not cite the facts that cause such high crime among inner-city blacks, that being the rampant fatherlessness? Nope; instead he had to make the incorrect, unfactual statement.
If I had a dollar for every time a Republican claimed to be “staunchly” anti-abortion yet made absolutely no effort to ban it, I’d be well able to retire.
Total nonsense and the same reasoning as the national socialists used/use, not to mention the envirowackos. Aborting innocent babies and (as Bennett alluded to) committing de jure genocide would absolutely not reduce future crime whatsoever. And it would bring God’s wrath sooner.
The thread brings him up.
The issue about crime going down in the 1990s (20 some years after Roe v Wade) was mentioned in Freakanomics. It might have been the origin of the discussion Bennett contributed to.
Agree, I remember the statement and Bennett was making a point to prove the idiocy of the lib arguments.
It would. There is no denying it would. You can go ahead and do so but the demographics of current and past crime statistics do not support your viewpoint.
But whether it does or not, makes zero difference whether abortion is right or wrong. This is my overall point.
It doesn’t matter if you believe it won’t and it doesn’t matter if I believe it would. Abortion isn’t right or wrong based on whether it reduces crime. It’s wrong because it is murder. It’s rightness or wrongness doesn’t hinge on whether or not crime is reduced. Or anything else, for that matter.
Now you can continue to argue about what we disagree on, which has no bearing on what we agree on, which is the more important point, but I am not going to.
Is that true?! I do listen to the tail end of his radio program often...find him to be ‘squishy’, but never knew he was a leftie (his brother, yes!)
kg/nancy
Do you have any math to support your contention? re: “I stand by my assertion that the crime rate would go up “statistically” if all black fetuses were massacred by abortion.”
“You’re all off-base. William Bennett is strongly pro-life...”
Yes.
I don’t understand the point of this article.
You are still way off on the intent of Bennett’s comment.
“Does no one remember the context this occurred or anything about Bill Bennett?”
Apparently not.
I would think anyone posting to FR would know who Bennet is, but I guess not.
Since it’s based on liberal fallacy, he still ought not to have made it. And that’s all I’m saying.
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.