Bill Bennett-"abort every black baby to reduce crime"

usickenme

usickenme

CAGiversary!
Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html


what a jerk. Sorry but Racism is not a virtue.

"I don't think people have the right to be angry, if they look at the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, "I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."
Click to expand...
 
I'll edit my comment after reading the whole article. Anyone ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? Same sort of thing.

As a friend pointed out, in a world of sound bytes this was just a dumb thing to say, but he wasn't advocating such action. Singling out a race of people was just dumb. His point would've been far more pointed and less offensive if he suggested aboring 1/2 the babies in the world. Disgusting, but would've gotten to the point he was getting at. "The ends do not justify the means."

daroga
 
[quote name='daroga']I'll edit my comment after reading the whole article. Anyone ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? Same sort of thing.
[/QUOTE]

Except Swift was Irish (the proposal was for the Irish to eat their children to reduce their burden on society)

It is not so much the suggestion that an entire race be aborted (which is bad enough) but the continual assumption that blacks are the main reason for crime. Ignoring other factors.
 
I don't think Bennett is incorrect in his assertion (of the crime rate dropping, anyway). He is mistaken, however, in thinking and stating that race is related to criminal activity.

Are more blacks prone to criminal activity, however? Yes; one look at the demographic of our corrections system (state and federal penetentiaries, not local jails) finds that blacks, 12% of the US population, make up almost 45% of all prison inmates. So, sure, blacks are more crime prone than whites. I can't deny that.

However, I won't say that "being black causes crime." That simply isn't true (and it isn't what I said in the above paragraph). Being poor leads to a greater propensity to engage in criminal activity. (to be clear, we're talking property offenses, drug offenses, and violent crime; I don't think that Bill Bennett is discussing embezzlement or insider trading here). People with reduced opportunities (either through economic circumstances or self-imposed - that is, through one's decisions for you individualists - failings through life) to succeed financially lead to situations in which crime is considered a viable alternative to having a shit job or no job.

So, there are economic circumstances in addition to residential circumstances (when we consider crime, we consider urban crime far more than, say, methamphetamine and oxycontin use in the appalaichian region of the US), blacks are far more likely to live in the urban proper than whites (we've all read about "white flight," haven't we?).

So we can say it is a "black" problem, which does no favors to the true economic discrimination that underlies attitudes towards the legitimacy of prosocial behavior, attitudes favorable to alternatives (deviance and crime), and the opportunities and social bonds that help reduce the motivations to commit crime.

Bill Bennett is correct in his assumption that aborting black children will reduce crime. His mistake, however, is in not suggesting that we abort poor white babies to reduce crime further (or, better yet, that aborting poor babies period - rather than delineating race - will eliminate crime).

Of course, this falls under the presumption that downward mobility is unlikely to occur. In the absence of poor reproducing poor (if Bill Bennett's hypothetical comes true), downward mobility is much more likely to occur (if we agree that there is a positive function of having an underclass in our society - hell, even Marx noticed *that*).

My two cents. Bennett and Katrina have made the black vote for democrats an effortless endeavor for the next 8 years or so, by my estimation. It's a shame, too; I so thoroughly enjoy watching bigots pander to the minorities they keep down, that when they know they fucked up big, and simply stay away from blacks for awhile, it's not much fun to watch them squirm.

Hell, maybe this will finally get Bush to attend an NAACP meeting. It's been 5 years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hell, maybe this will finally get Bush to attend an NCAA meeting. It's been 5 years.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean NAACP?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Are more blacks prone to criminal activity, however? Yes; one look at the demographic of our corrections system (state and federal penetentiaries, not local jails) finds that blacks, 12% of the US population, make up almost 45% of all prison inmates. So, sure, blacks are more crime prone than whites. I can't deny that.
[/QUOTE]

I think to determine if blacks are more prone to criminal activity to whites, you would have to take into consideration those who get probation and community service. Blacks, I think, tend more to get prison sentences for lesser crimes while white people would get probation and community service.
 
It's a sad state of affairs when they just keep blaming black people for things that they have no control over. The main reason for the high crime rate is people of all backgrounds not being educated and having the opportunity to be successful in America. Everyone likes to place blame on one group but I think that we have to look at the whole and make changes because where there is no opportunity people will do anything to survive even if that is to resort to crime.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:oops:[/QUOTE]

:lol:

I think he should go to an NCAA meeting too. Myles Brand (that's the President of the NCAA) is a jackass and is ruining college athletics. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the topic.
 
[quote name='uzumaki_star']It's a sad state of affairs when they just keep blaming black people for things that they have no control over.[/QUOTE]

I dont understand this comment. Parents have control over their kids, dont matter if they living rich or poor, all parents have direct control over thier kids, unless they are on drugs or something, but i dont think this is the issue here.


[quote name='uzumaki_star']The main reason for the high crime rate is people of all backgrounds not being educated and having the opportunity to be successful in America.[/QUOTE]

I dont think people in the inner city area( or other places, outside of the inner city area, because alot of people lived rough or poor in other places, of all nations) is worrying too much about being successful in america:lol:. People just wanna eat or get a roof over thier heads and maybe lived a good life, but the word successful is over the top here, yet alone doing it in america. You make it sound like america is the greatest land :roll:

And it has nothing to do with being educated someone can have no education and still be one of the smartest people living on earth, not to mention living by the commandments and laws.


[quote name='uzumaki_star']Everyone likes to place blame on one group but I think that we have to look at the whole and make changes[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on that part to. :)

[quote name='uzumaki_star']Because where there is no opportunity people will do anything to survive even if that is to resort to crime.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. I think you should say " Some " people, because not all is like that.
 
His remarks were taken out of context; what a surprise.

As far as Bush going to the NAACP? Why should he? They do nothing but bash him and Republicans in general. They are not the only minority group in the country. The NAACP might as well be the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Socialist People.

Funny how words about an abstract about abortion are far more offensive to people and politicians that 40 million dead Americans in 32 years.

Wonder why that is.

BTW it was the position of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger to stop the breeding of less desireable segments of the population. They're achieving that very goal today with unlimited supports of abortion. Planned Parenthood = Not conservative.
 
I think mykevermin and daroga are dead on with this one. It wasn't that Bennet's comments weren't factually correct, but that they were incredibly insensitive and he should have known better.

And to level things out, I'll make an incredibly stupid statement:

Abortion has failed. Why? Because there are still usless people walking around today. How many have you met that you wish could just go away? Now imagine if that person had had their worthless brains sucked out of their skull before they had a chnace to pollute the world with their existance. Pretty cool, huh?

I've got some solutions, however. Make birth control free to every girl when she turns 15, stop giving tax breaks to people who have more than 3 kids, and make abortions legal up through the age of 13.
 
I dont understand this comment. Parents have control over their kids, dont matter if they living rich or poor, all parents have direct control over thier kids, unless they are on drugs or something, but i dont think this is the issue here.
Click to expand...

They do? Did your parents know what you were doing all the time when you were 16 or 17? Mine sure as hell didn't. It's not like parents can always be home and, when they are, it's not like you're always home with them.
 
I don't see how the mediamatters thing is wrong. He's right. If there were no black babies, hence no black teenagers eventually or young adults, what would the crime rate be amongst black people?

0

There wouldn't be any.
 
[quote name='evanft']I think mykevermin and daroga are dead on with this one. It wasn't that Bennet's comments weren't factually correct, but that they were incredibly insensitive and he should have known better.

And to level things out, I'll make an incredibly stupid statement:

Abortion has failed. Why? Because there are still usless people walking around today. How many have you met that you wish could just go away? Now imagine if that person had had their worthless brains sucked out of their skull before they had a chnace to pollute the world with their existance. Pretty cool, huh?

I've got some solutions, however. Make birth control free to every girl when she turns 15, stop giving tax breaks to people who have more than 3 kids, and make abortions legal up through the age of 13.[/QUOTE]

Yea, the problem with abortion is that that people need to be smart enough to know they're too stupid to raise a child.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I don't see how the mediamatters thing is wrong. He's right. If there were no black babies, hence no black teenagers eventually or young adults, what would the crime rate be amongst black people?

0

There wouldn't be any.[/QUOTE]

That line of logic is not untrue if we don't consider race. With that in mind, why focus on blacks at all?
 
Ah, I see nobody heard the actual radio broadcast and the sentence that followed this statement that the media is having a field day with.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That line of logic is not untrue if we don't consider race. With that in mind, why focus on blacks at all?[/QUOTE]
With the way indictments are flying around, he could have said Republicans instead. :lol:
 
[quote name='Brak']Ah, I see nobody heard the actual radio broadcast and the sentence that followed this statement that the media is having a field day with.[/QUOTE]

Also, as a fun game, try to find the rest of what he said. Go ahead. It'll be fun.
 
BTW it was the position of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger to stop the breeding of less desireable segments of the population. They're achieving that very goal today with unlimited supports of abortion. Planned Parenthood = Not conservative.
Click to expand...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005099.html

This is the most current, comprehensive list I can find by doing a quick search. Highest abortion rate is 39 per 100,000 thousand, and only two exceed 30 (california and new york). How exactly are they breeding out less desirable aspects of society with a rate that low?

But sanger is controversial. While she did have racist beliefs, she also did work for minority rights and hired black doctors for her clinics. She did give some support to eugenics, in the sense that the less desirable, the stupid, criminal etc. must be either prevented from breeding or removed from the rest of the population. The extension of that belief to an open attack to stop the breeding of minorities is based on the beliefs of other proponents of eugenics, and open hostility towards her cause.

But it's unlikely sanger would support the current state of abortions. Planned parenthood, under her, was designed to promote contraceptive use, it never advocated abortion. She did not generally believe in abortion, though found that, in some cases, it was necessary. She believed that we could get rid of abortion by promoting contraceptive use.

But, also, focusing on sanger to attack planned parenthood is similar to focusing on the fact that george washington owned slaves to attack america. They are the founding fathers and mothers, but they do not accurately represent the current state of what they created.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']But that was the line of logic. He was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. It wasn't a literal statement.[/QUOTE]

And he could have been just as absurd by substituting ANY classification, including none at all, to make his point.

Race was not provoked or brought up in the snippet until he brought it in out of nowhere. It is not a literal statement, that much I admit; however, the abitrary inclusion of race is certainly telling.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They do? Did your parents know what you were doing all the time when you were 16 or 17? Mine sure as hell didn't. It's not like parents can always be home and, when they are, it's not like you're always home with them.[/QUOTE]

When i say direct control, i'm talking about by words, teaching. Also when kids grow up, they hear the good word, but fail to listen. People change, some dont, thats just the way it is. People listen, some dont, parents have alot more power then one thinks, then its really up to the kids to listen.

When i was growing up, i was rise up into GOD and all that good stuff, but sometimes i didnt listen, then i got my wake up called, and i started to listen. So if i can do it, so can the next person. I think every child gets thier wake up called, more then once, but the question is, who is really listening?

I fear each generation of children that is born into this world - Untouchable2K

* And for good reason too * :cry:
 
I find it interesting that conservatives are now taking the issue of abortion and turning it into an economic issue (IE more aborted babies = less money for the coffers and less security for the nation)

Interesting because many fascists (including the Nazis) view abortion in the same way - IE that aborting a fetus with the potential to become a human baby weakens the fatherland, because it means one less soldier for the latest war or one less dollar on the revenue sheets.

I like the fact that Benett was ridiculing this arguement, but I think he tipped his hand more then he wanted in using the analogy that he choose.
 
Bennett was obviously insensitive and should have known better. It is simply not OK in this political climate to invoke race, even if the substance of what you are saying is true.

I do think, though, that the majority of folks clamoring to attack Bennett have not taken the time to see the point behind his remark, which was that using a decline in the crime rate to justify abortion is absurd. Taken to its logical extreme, it could lead to the line of clearly racist, misguided, and reprehensible logic that Bennett suggested in his remarks -- namely, aborting all black babies. His point was correct, but he should have been more aware of the PC (political climate and political correctness).

Edited to add that I actually support abortion rights, but not because it leads to a decline in the crime rate. Although that may be a subsidiary benefit.
 
The only way abortion leads to any realistic decline in crime rates is because there are now no illegal back ally abortions taking place. The amount of aborted unborn children is too small.

Though it would be interesting to find the economic class of the average woman who has an abortion, I haven't been able to find statistics on that.
 
[quote name='Brak']Ah, I see nobody heard the actual radio broadcast and the sentence that followed this statement that the media is having a field day with.[/QUOTE]

It was posted on the first page.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']40 million dead Americans in 32 years is too small?

Wow and to think you bitch about how many dead soldiers have died in Iraq in 3 years.[/QUOTE]

To have an effect on things such as crime rates. And I still need to find class statistics, because you have to determine how many come from lower classes, which are statistically more prone to crime, than from middle or upper economic classes.

And they're not "dead americans" they're potential americans. If they can't survive outside of the womb, or at minium can't think or feel, they have no value other than what the mother places on it. About 90% of all aborted are done so before they can feel pain.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The only way abortion leads to any realistic decline in crime rates is because there are now no illegal back ally abortions taking place. The amount of aborted unborn children is too small.

Though it would be interesting to find the economic class of the average woman who has an abortion, I haven't been able to find statistics on that.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that is correct, actually. I would need to see the numbers, but it could very well be true that abortions among the poor and blacks are per capita higher. If that is the case, the number of abortions in those communities, even if relatively small, could have an impact on crime.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I'm not sure that is correct, actually. I would need to see the numbers, but it could very well be true that abortions among the poor and blacks are per capita higher. If that is the case, the number of abortions in those communities, even if relatively small, could have an impact on crime.[/QUOTE]

That's what I said, I'd need economic class statistics, which I can't find. But, for example, if there are 40 million abortions, 25 million from the poor, or otherwise crime prone groups, and 15 million from the middle class, taken over 30 years, the crime difference nationally would be negligable.
 
Someone already did all this work for you:

Freakonomics

Its an extremely interesting book. It covers several topics, probably the biggest among them being the correlation between abortions and crime.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Someone already did all this work for you:

Freakonomics

Its an extremely interesting book. It covers several topics, probably the biggest among them being the correlation between abortions and crime.[/QUOTE]

Is there something online that states his argument?
 
Yep, a paper than the author wrote on the subject for the 'Quarterly Journal of Economics' can be found here. The paper is somewhat of a dry read, having been written by and for statisticians. The book was written with a larger audience in mind, and is well worth checking out at your local library.
 
If the first part of this paragraph are true, this is a significant challenge to his theory:

But in economics, new theories based on innovative research are almost immediately tested to see if they can be replicated, and in Levitt’s case what quickly emerged were counterstudies that questioned his methods and conclusions. Professor Ted Joyce of City University of New York found that incidents of homicide by perpetrators in age groups too old to have been affected by legalized abortion declined faster than murders by younger perps. John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and John Whitley of Adelaide University in Australia noted that research on the legalization of abortion suggested that it actually increased illegitimate births and single-parent families. They concluded that rather than decrease crime, legalized abortion probably contributed slightly to its increase.
Click to expand...

This would appear to counter his argument that it isn't the changes in the way crime is dealt with, or various other reasons, but abortions that dropped crime rates.

Though I read the first 7 or so pages, and little bits here and there. I have some minimal interest in the subject, but not enough to read the 37 pages of his argument, because none of my opinions are really based on the connection. From the part I read it seems to be an overly simplistic approach not even taking into consideration other reasons (which also seems to be the major criticism directed against it when I checked), but I'm not going to pretend that I can accurately refute or criticize an entire document that I have only partially read. Though he didn't actually mention the abortion class statistics in the parts I read, or near the end where he lists statistics.

If I can remember, I'll read the chapter on it next time I'm at barnes and noble or borders.

edit: Looking at figure 2, the drop occured from 92 and on, a period of poverty reduction and change in the way crime was approached. The post roe vs wade children would be 19, and it is odd it was still going up fast when they were 17, 18 and 19, then suddenly dropped. It wouldn't seem to allow for the growing of that generation, and the aging of the one ahead of them.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']40 million dead Americans in 32 years is too small?

Wow and to think you bitch about how many dead soldiers have died in Iraq in 3 years.[/QUOTE]

Not that I agree with it, but a classic Bill Hicks quote on the subject:

"You're not a person unless you're in my phone book."
 
[quote name='Drocket']Someone already did all this work for you:

Freakonomics

Its an extremely interesting book. It covers several topics, probably the biggest among them being the correlation between abortions and crime.[/QUOTE]

You learn that correlation and causation are two totally different things in your undergraduate years.

I'm going to read that paper, but I'm going on record for starters as someone who doesn't like any economists (with the exception of Paul Krugman). The foundation of all economic theory is the idea of "Rational Choice," which is the most awful sort of tautological explanations ever considered (much less legitimized).

I'll see if I can't read that paper by Monday (wife's birthday this weekend; martinis and quantitative research don't mix).
 
Well in his defense, and similarly to what myke said, if you picked ANY race and aborted all their children there would be a drop in crime. If for no other reason your reducing the population.

However, what he said was highly inappropriate and should not be condoned. This is surprising to me that Bill Bennett would say something like this because, as an ex-talk radio listener, I found Bennett to actually be the most moderate and sensible among the nationally syndicated hosts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You learn that correlation and causation are two totally different things in your undergraduate years.[/QUOTE]

I know. I really can't say much about the paper I linked to before (I really haven't read it, and it at least appears much shorter than the presentation of the subject in the book), but one of the topics that he covers in the book regarding the abortion/crime topic is whether its possible to really show causation. He presents a lot of 'smaller' correlation studies that show a very strong correlation between the two things (for example, examination of states that legalized abortion earlier than the Roe v. Wade decision. The few states that had legal abortions earlier had the drop in crime earlier. In addition, he also brings in the correlation between poverty and abortion and poverty in crime.)

Although you can never ABSOLUTELY say that, on a large scale, legalized abortions reduce crime, I think he's done an excellent job of providing enough correlation that you have to at least ponder the causation.
 
My friend's been trying to get me to read Freakonomics for some time now, but I haven't had time with work, grad school, the wife, etc. I'll have to read it before Christmas, though.
 
Orson Scott Card's thoughts on Freakonomics:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-09-11-1.html

Fairly interesting coming from the Hugo and Nebula-winning sci-fi author (Ultimate Iron Man is good stuff as well). It all sounds logical and convincing enough, and generally, would seem to have some level of truth to it. Still, I'm not a big fan of blanket judgements, as I have to ask, at what level would I be included in the list of undesirables, neither being particularly well-to-do, and being raised by a single mother for the most part (heh, my father was a bastard...).
 
That Card review points out something that should have been obvious (to me, anyway).

Roe v Wade happened in 1973. They look at the crime trends since then,

They totally ignore that a landmark study (Robert Martinson) came out in 1974, and that affected all subsequent corrections policies. The study claimed (erroneously) that rehabilitation efforts didn't do a goddamned thing to prevent future crime. The result of that? Funding cuts for prisons and rehabilitation programs. Increased penalties (mandatory minimums and three strikes policies in the 1980's).

The prison population tripled in size from 1973-1996 (from ~700,000 to 2.1 million) as a direct result of policies that deemphasized rehabilitation and emphasized punishment.

The ironic thing is that the crime rate did not decrease from year-to-year until around 1993, 20 years after Roe v Wade, and indicating that pro-punishment policies didn't do anything to change crime rates. Rehabilitation almost died in the mid-70's through the 80's, but years after it was brought back, the crime rate trends began heading downward.

I'm still going to read that paper, but it just strikes me that these authors published a controversial correlation to get people to buy the book (just like "The Bell Curve" from several years ago).
 
The book (I don't know about the study) presents checks against the changes in crime punishment. Again, the book presents studies done regarding several different states in specific, including a few that legalized abortion earlier than the national legalization. States that legalized abortion earlier had a drop in crime earlier than states in which abortion wasn't legalized until later. The book does a LOT of work to take into account any and all objections that have been presented regarding their theory (the paper, being an earlier work, most likely doesn't, since those objections hadn't been presented yet.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top