Bennett under fire for remarks on blacks, crime

[Gabriel_Gale]

http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm

Australian columnist makes explicit the anti-black eugenic basis of Levitt’s theory

Michael Duffy writes an important column in the Sydney Morning Herald on the Freakonomics’ theory that abortion cut crime. Although he doesn’t realize that crime first went up among the groups most affected by abortion, he lays Levitt’s eugenic cards on the table:

For example, in the US black youths commit nine times more murders, relative to their population, than white youths. As, after 1973, the black fertility rate fell 12 per cent (it was 4 per cent for whites), this might be expected to reduce the homicide rate.

Disingenuous? Yes, because Levitt has noted this. Previously, in a 1999, NY Times about Levitt’s then paper and theory, he said:

**“Most of the reduction,” Dr. Levitt and Dr. Donohue write, “appears to be attributable to higher rates of abortion by mothers whose children are most likely to be at risk for future crime.” Teen-agers, unmarried women and black women, for example, have higher rates of abortion, the researchers note, and children born to mothers in these groups are statistically at higher risk for crime in adulthood. **

 

[condan]

Guar Fan:

I am not sure where Fr Neuhaus is getting his statistics but I don’t think they are from the book Freakonomics. One of the authors of that book posted this in his blog, concerning the Bennett brouhaha:

freakonomics.com/blog.php

In general, this author, Steven D. Levitt, does not support Bennett’s contention.

What exactly is Mr. Bennett’s “contention”?

Hint: It’s not that aborting all the black babies will reduce the crime rate.

 

[Guar_Fan]

condan:

What exactly is Mr. Bennett’s “contention”?

Hint: It’s not that aborting all the black babies will reduce the crime rate.

Actually that is Bennett’s contention. I will quote him from an interview he gave to ABC News: "“It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies”.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1171385&page=1

Now we both know that Bennett was using this argument as an example of a morally reprehensible policy. But what has enraged folks is simply that it was put forward at all.

All he had to do was say, yes, the very idea is horrific. It is something which should never be done, let alone considered. He should of emphasized that portion of his comment - to put everything into perspective. But instead he has made matters worse by trying to explain that “it would have worked”.

 

[oldfogey]

Ah… could his point have been that when you reduce human life to a mere instrument to your pragmatic ends, that life itself becomes just a statistical commodity? And that this is horrific?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Guar Fan:

Actually that is Bennett’s contention. I will quote him from an interview he gave to ABC News: "“It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies”.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1171385&page=1

Now we both know that Bennett was using this argument as an example of a morally reprehensible policy. But what has enraged folks is simply that it was put forward at all.

All he had to do was say, yes, the very idea is horrific. It is something which should never be done, let alone considered. He should of emphasized that portion of his comment - to put everything into perspective. But instead he has made matters worse by trying to explain that “it would have worked”.

What’s the difference between morally reprehensible and horrific?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Guar Fan:

I am not an expert on population or any of the things you mention. Heck, I haven’t even read Freakonomics (whose sales should skyrocket after this tempest in a teapot).

But I do know that my parents, after having four children quickly after marriage, said… okay that is it. No more.

It seems to make sense that most people have children until they reach whatever number they are comfortable with. This number may be reached when they are 22 or it may be reached when they are 32. But having children early in life doesn’t mean that a person will naturally have more kids total.

You can’t reach that number if you start too late. BTW anybody have any stats on infertility over the last 3 decades.

 

[Hildebrand]

Guar Fan:

I am not an expert on population or any of the things you mention. Heck, I haven’t even read Freakonomics

(whose sales should skyrocket after this tempest in a teapot).

But I do know that my parents, after having four children quickly after marriage, said… okay that is it. No more.

It seems to make sense that most people have children until they reach whatever number they are comfortable with. This number may be reached when they are 22 or it may be reached when they are 32. But having children early in life doesn’t mean that a person will naturally have more kids total.

That’s maybe how you do it and many others do it. But certainly it is not what all do, and I don’t think you can say it is how most, if not all people do it.

My grandmother had many miscarriages. My mother had one or two miscarriages. They did not plan any of their children. They were open to having as many children as they had, whether it was 1 or 8.

Especially in the poorer areas that did not have access to artificial contraception or use artificial contraception, women get pregnant all the time. So to say with all the factors out there, you can’t make such blanket statements and expect people to believe you. Without even considering that abortion increases your chances of miscarriage (thus making the chances greater that you will have fewer children) and women have a “biological clock”. Despite those two huge factors, there are many more that play into how many children a woman will have. And to say by aborting some of your children, you would end up with the same exact number of children at the end of the day… who are we kidding here? Maybe it’s true for women who are on “the pill”, but there are thousands of women who became pregnant on the pill. Maybe it might have been true for more women if there was a MAJOR disincentive for poor women to have children, not the incentives the great society and the other governmental social programs that almost rewarded poor women for having children.

What Levitt said about all this just does not compute.

 

[MommaKat]

Infertility rates are up substainally. In my Life New email people have shown concern about infertility and premature birth and a link to hormon birth control and abortion. Also there is a link between breast cancer and both the pill and abortion.

 

[condan]

Guar Fan:

Actually that is Bennett’s contention. I will quote him from an interview he gave to ABC News: "“It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies”.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1171385&page=1

Now we both know that Bennett was using this argument as an example of a morally reprehensible policy. But what has enraged folks is simply that it was put forward at all.

All he had to do was say, yes, the very idea is horrific. It is something which should never be done, let alone considered. He should of emphasized that portion of his comment - to put everything into perspective. But instead he has made matters worse by trying to explain that “it would have worked”.

No, his contention was that using the argument that abortion has reduced crime is tricky.

Mr. Bennet did in fact say that the supposition he put forth is “morally reprehensible”. His words, not mine. I have both read and heard the transcripts of the conversation. Further, if you abort all the (fill in the race) babies, crime WILL go down. That was the ILLUSTRATION he was making. Why in the world is it that we can’t say the word “BLACK” (or gay or Muslim) without being labeled racist, homophobic or intolerant?

Huh? Why is that???

 

[Guar_Fan]

oldfogey:

Ah… could his point have been that when you reduce human life to a mere instrument to your pragmatic ends, that life itself becomes just a statistical commodity? And that this is horrific?

Gabriel Gale:

What’s the difference between morally reprehensible and horrific?

I agree with both of your points. And if Bennett had emphasized those points, rather than the equation of black abortions=lower crime, he could have dampened the criticism that he recieved.

(But hopefully this whole debacle will have blown over by Monday)

condan:

Further, if you abort all the (fill in the race) babies, crime WILL go down.

Well, given a smaller total population, yes I suppose there would be less crime just as there would be less fish consumed or less miles driven on the highways.

The objection that people have about the equation black abortions=less crime is that it suggests that there is something inherent in being black that tends towards criminality. And that equation is simply false - if life factors are considered, blacks are no more likely to commit crimes than any other race. Its not genetic.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Guar Fan:

I agree with both of your points. And if Bennett had emphasized those points, rather than the equation of black abortions=lower crime, he could have dampened the criticism that he recieved.

(But hopefully this whole debacle will have blown over by Monday)

Well, given a smaller total population, yes I suppose there would be less crime just as there would be less fish consumed or less miles driven on the highways.

The objection that people have about the equation black abortions=less crime is that it suggests that there is something inherent in being black that tends towards criminality. And that equation is simply false - if life factors are considered, blacks are no more likely to commit crimes than any other race. Its not genetic.

In follow-up, it seems that Bennett did try to deemphasize the racial aspects of his argument as indicated by your quoted from ABC:
ABC via Guar Fan:

Actually that is Bennett’s contention. I will quote him from an interview he gave to ABC News: "“It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies”.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/…=1171385&page=1

I have heard several people comment that Bennett should have just said “males” suggesting that this would have been less offensive. This is somewhat understandable since people assume that aborting all males would be impossible.

Certainly, Bennett could have said abort all babies from single mothers probably with less uproar. In Freakonomics, Levitt dropped Black women from his original paper’s list of disproportionate abortion users. However, he has continued to emphasize the single mothers. Eugenics is a term applied to a particular class, not necessarily race. I would suggest that eugenics as applied to the class “single women” is not odious to Liberal/Mainstream sensibilities, just don’t point out that this group is disproportionately, African American.

 

[PLAL]

First off, I think Bennett needs to be much more careful when making statements.

Second, I was listening to the Teri O’Brien Show on 890AM Radio in Chicago this afternoon when a caller on the show made a good point by stating…

**It’s very interesting how the liberal media attacks the right when Bennett uses the example of “aborting 5 out of 5 black babies in this country” to make a point in his statement about crime. **

But where is the liberal media when someone actually makes it their livelyhood to make sure 3 out of every 5 black babies are aborted every day for the last 32 years like Planned Parenthood???

 

[condan]

Guar Fan:

I
The objection that people have about the equation black abortions=less crime is that it suggests that there is something inherent in being black that tends towards criminality. And that equation is simply false - if life factors are considered, blacks are no more likely to commit crimes than any other race. Its not genetic.

No one is saying that. Even the suggestion is stupid and offensive and strikes me personally as being subly racist as if one has that in the back of their mind. It is possible, you know, to actually not think that black people are all criminals. In fact, some folks don’t even bother with the color of someone’s skin, as nutty as that may seem. There are even people who live in areas wherer you find all kinds of people and who make all kinds of friends, simply because they are nice and have the same values as you do.

Mr. Bennet was using an example. The issue is that we can’t say the word “black” without incurring the wrath of the democrats because they will use anything, no matter how ludicrous, to discredit the conservative movement. Had he said “Polish” or “Irish” or “Italian”, no one would have raised an eyebrow. But, your crime rate would go down.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

As I said, eugenics has never been far from the enlightened demand for legalized abortion.

From Slate Magazine, a liberal publication:

Ehrenreich and von Hoffman

Ehrenreich: “Suffice it to say, you and I agree abortion ought to be legal and if you are pleased to think so because free choice matters to you, you’ll get no argument from me. The bumper sticker on the back of my car reads, “CAUTION! THE FETUS YOU SAVE WILL GROW UP TO MUG YOU!”

http://slate.msn.com/id/2000038/entry/1001488/#ContinueArticle

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Zooey:

The very fact that those words would come out of somebody’s mouth!!!I don’t care what point he was trying to make, the very fact that he would use this kind of language, says to me that he has :nope: no decency…
How could anyone even suggest that…What does that say about him ??? http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/10.gif
Sickening!!!http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/3.gif

I’m sorry, but the man needs to apologize. Big time.

Hey, Zooey…Really interesting! How about some further info?

Exactly what do you mean when you say, “I’m sorry.” ???

Are there any other words in our language that tell you unequivocally that a person using them “has no decency?”

Must the words be in the given order to qualify as indicative of “no decency” or may they be rearranged?

Can you name other public persons whose choices of words “say to [you]” that the person “has no decency?”

To what or whom do you owe your well-developed criteria of what is or is not indicative of a person’s decency?

Inquiring minds (and those desirous of never being identified by you as having “no decency”), are crazy to know!

(Forgive the erasure of some of your “smilies;” I couldn’t post without dropping some of them.)

Anna

 

[koda]

condan:

No one is saying that. Even the suggestion is stupid and offensive and strikes me personally as being subly racist as if one has that in the back of their mind. It is possible, you know, to actually not think that black people are all criminals. In fact, some folks don’t even bother with the color of someone’s skin, as nutty as that may seem. There are even people who live in areas wherer you find all kinds of people and who make all kinds of friends, simply because they are nice and have the same values as you do.

Mr. Bennet was using an example. The issue is that we can’t say the word “black” without incurring the wrath of the democrats because they will use anything, no matter how ludicrous, to discredit the conservative movement. Had he said “Polish” or “Irish” or “Italian”, no one would have raised an eyebrow. But, your crime rate would go down.

Then why did he use the word “black”? He could have said that aborting all babies would reduce crime. But could he not have thought of a more positive approach to crime reduction? I don’t know what his intentions were, but it really sounded bad.

 

[condan]

koda:

Then why did he use the word “black”? He could have said that aborting all babies would reduce crime. But could he not have thought of a more positive approach to crime reduction? I don’t know what his intentions were, but it really sounded bad.

He was refuting someone else’s argument that abortion reduces crime. Why did he say black? Why not? Can’t we say black without fear of retribution?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

koda:

Then why did he use the word “black”? He could have said that aborting all babies would reduce crime. But could he not have thought of a more positive approach to crime reduction? I don’t know what his intentions were, but it really sounded bad.

There were several themes that came together on the radio show:
Katrina, New Orleans, Blacks and crime; abortion and social security; a book, “Freakonomics” part of which featured arguments supporting abortion and crime reduction.

Bennett’s point was that utilitarian arguments against arbortion (ie if we had less abortions, we would have more money in Social Security) are countered by utiltarian arguments for abortion (abortion can reduce the crime rate). Bennett wanted to emphasized that the only argument against abortion is that fact that abortion is “morally reprehensible.”

 

[PLAL]

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46674

http://www.wnd.com/images/stanek.gifhttp://www.wnd.com/images/JillStanek.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclu_comm.gif
Eating black licorice, aborting black babies … who cares?

Posted: October 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Last week, conservative talk-show host Bill Bennett expressed misgivings about a caller’s hypothesis that Social Security would be solvent were it not for all the aborted payers. Bennett drew an analogy:

*BENNETT: … I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both – you know, one of the arguments in this book “Freakonomics” … is that … one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well …

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either … because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.*

Bennett was correct to draw the caller back to our basic moral arguments, that abortion kills children and hurts girls and women. Focusing on these truths stops the other side from enticing us to their rabbit trails – like this one.

Further, one of the authors of “Freakonomics” thought Bennett’s admittedly abhorrent hypothesis was likely correct, as he explained on his blog:

*If we lived in a world in which the government chose who gets to reproduce, then Bennett would be correct … Of course, it would also be true that if we aborted every white, Asian, male, Republican, and Democratic baby in that world, crime would also fall.

Immediately after he made the statement about blacks, he followed it up by saying, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.” He made a factual statement (if you prohibit any group from reproducing, then the crime rate will go down), and then he noted that just because a statement is true, it doesn’t mean that it is desirable or moral.*

I debated the aforementioned author on the radio once, citing studies indicating that crimes like homicide, murder, drug abuse and child abuse actually increase in post-abortive women and men.

Later, I wondered to myself if pro-lifers should just concede that point, agreeing that those who kill their own prenatal children are indeed felonious role models.

But I digress. Liberal Democrat leaders – abortion extremists all – immediately censured Bennett as “hateful,” “inflammatory,” and “racist,” and demanded he not only apologize, but that Salem Broadcasting fire him.

 

[PLAL]

continued…

But pro-aborts can’t have it every which way.

If abortion represents no greater moral significance than removing an appendix, what is hateful about recommending a baby’s disposal if s/he is problematic?

If abortion is a sacred constitutional right, why wouldn’t blacks getting abortions be celebrated as an American story of triumph?

If abortees aren’t persons who might grow up to commit crimes, why the outrage?

If it is racist to focus on abortions in the black community, why don’t Democrats call for investigations of abortion businesses, since they purposefully target blacks? According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion provider:

*Abortion services are concentrated in cities, so it is often easier for women residing in metropolitan counties to obtain these services. Nine in 10 women obtaining abortions reside in metropolitan areas …

The lowest abortion rate of all the racial and ethnic groups examined was among white women (13 per 1,000), while the highest rate was among black women (49 per 1,000) …*

According to the U.S. Census bureau, 51.5 percent of blacks live in cities, compared to 21 percent of whites.

According to Guttmacher, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to abort, while blacks account for only 13 percent of the population.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more blacks – 13 million – have been killed since abortion was legalized in 1973 than by violent crimes, AIDS, accidents, cancer, heart disease combined.

According to the U.S. Census bureau, there were 36 million blacks in the United States in 2002. If 13 million black children had not been killed by abortion, the black community would now number 49 million – it would be 36 percent larger. Abortion has killed over one-third of the black community in the last 32 years.

I’d say Bill Bennett is more a prophet than a theorist.

Jill Stanek fought to stop “live-birth abortion” after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill’s blog, Pro-life Pulse.