Bill Bennett's stupid comment

I suppose I should make some comment on Bill Bennet's remarks.

I've just been waiting on someone else to respond correctly without jumping to defend or attack a conservative, depending on your already establish position.

In my opinion, very few people have gotten this situation and the aftermath right.

I don't think that anyone should "defend" what Bennett said. It was a very poor choice of words that offended a great deal of people. He should at least apologize for the offense and explain that his remarks were in no way intended to offend anyone.

It is idiotic in this day and age to bring up something such as the abortion of every black baby in our nation. There are numerous other, better ways in which Bennett could have illustrated his point.

Having said all that, why do the words of Bill Bennett matter more than the policies of others? Millions of black (white, hispanic, etc.) babies are destroyed every year through abortion. If abortion is not a morally wrong choice, then why is it wrong to speak of it? If it is simply a mother's choice about her own body, then why the outrage?

Many are also taking this opportunity to refocus on Bennett's gambling problem. Those attacks are a poor excuse for political discussion. They have nothing at all to do with the current debate over his comments. If his statement were related to gambling some way, then it would be of interest to bring it up. It is odd that the left who implores everyone to ignore Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy's past mistakes, seek to dredge back up Bennett's.

Also, the truth of his statement should be evaluted. Because of the higher percentage of single parent and low income homes in the black community, their crime rates are higher. Bennett never said, "Black people committ more crimes because they are black." The socio-economic and cultural reasons should be inferred as part of Bennett's statement.

He is obviously not advocating the "solution" that he proposed, because he is morally against abortion. (Not to mention the fact that he called it "impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible.") So all we are left with is the basic statement that the crime rate is higher in the black communities. Again, can that position be argued? Not that the rate is higher because they are black, but that it is demonstrably higher among black people for a host of reasons, none of which being their skin color.

Bennett's words just be judged as just that - words. The debate on their worthiness can and should be had. We can debate any other meaning they may have, but the fact remains that he does not see the elimination of scores of children (black and otherwise) as a good thing. This sets him apart from many of his attackers.

Comments

[seeker]

Poor choice of words, too easy to take out of context and minipulate. His point could have been more eloquently made - that if abortion is not really a problem, it follows that we should use it to control population, and aid society by targeting specific "problem populations." This extension of modern day pro-choice logic reveals abortion's genocidal/eugenic roots. I think this is Bennet's point.

No matter how well-meaning abortion-rights folks are, the fact that abortion is rooted, both philosophically and historically, in the murder of innocents, means that they are wittingly or unwittingly always going to be supporting an ideology of death, as well as the racist application of reproductive "rights."

Bennet's point, though poorly made, will come up again and again among pragmatists - I mean, since liberals find abortion for convenience acceptable, isn't it even MORE moral to abort for the better of society?

If males are more aggressive, maybe we should abort boys to lessen the agression in our society. If girls are less desirable and we have a "population problem" why not selectively abort girls (as they do in China)? If the disabled and handicapped are a drain on resources, why not abort them? If certain races or classes in a society are more prone to crime, why not coerce them to abort? If my child has a "gay gene" and I don't want my child to "suffer" the stigma, why not let me abort that child?

The answer is obvious - the life of the fetus is sacrosanct, and few other "competing" values (except the life of the mother and perhaps the quality of life if the child will only live a short time) should trump that life - not race, gender or supposed gender-identity, rape, incest, or the convenience of a teenager. Killing does not solve the above "problems."

Pro-choice "logic" is anything but logical - it's extremism that takes one person's rights (the mother) to an extreme, allowing it to override the rights of another (the baby AND the father). We should continue to rebuke and shame those who support abortion on demand, and continue to point out the logical ends of their position - the killing of the innocent and helpless.

[josh r]

I think Bennett's comments where just an example of him thinking on his feet. The people are angry at him should take a look at the freakonomics book that he was discussing, and render an opinion on that, just as Bennett did. The book claims that Crime rates have been

It is interesting that folks are so upset about Bennett discussing the topic of abortion being genocidal, but they are not at all offended by the truth -- 13 million african-american lives have been extinguished by abortion.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html