quote:

---

Originally posted by cruyff14:
. . .what would make you say that? Let's be clear-William Bennett is one of the biggest hypocrites out there-"book of virtues?" don't make me laugh. That aside what I did find interesting is the outrage of someone like Nancy Pelosi who has consistently supported the policy of unfettered abortions that have killed more tham 13 million black babies since Roe v. Wade. Blacks make up about 12% of the child bearing population yet account for over a third of abortions.

It's easy to criticize idiots like Bennett who come out and make outrageous comments like that, yet the silence is deafening when we consider the abortion industry's targetting of the black community. Almost three quarters of planned parenthood's abortion centres are located in or near minority communities. Go and look up how and who formed that organization-a devout racist who was very outspoken on the inferiority of blacks and very explicit about how she would control their population.

Her plan has worked to perfection because of the complicity of black politicians-Charlie Rangel comes to mind- and people like us here who are loathe to criticize this genocide. We even had ites-the one I'm responding to for example - who cited the new Chief Justice's discomfort with Roe v. Wade as an 'out-of-the-mainstream' position that should disqualify him from the post. Quite a few of them say they are 'personally' against abortion(the Kerry position I guess), yet they don't really feel it's a topic worthy of discussion when almost 1,500 black babies a day are being exterminated.

They have a big problem, and rightfully so, with the disproportionate number of blacks 'fighting' in Iraq. They have a big problem, and rightfully so, with the reaction to a disaster that disproportionately affected minorities. They have a big problem, and rightfully so with policies that increase inequality(although they seemed to like Clinton's policies that had the same effect). Yet they are quite comfortable either defending like Shaggy, or just as bad I think remaining silent on the targetting of the unborn children in their community. So far I have only been able to come up with one reason why this phenomenon exists. If anybody has any others I would be interested.

---

That is my argument...present administration (and those Republican's since Reagan) = "closet" racists while in office.

All the black institutions and black representatives are aligned with the democratic party.

The Democratic party receives 90% of the black votes in national elections.

Yet we complain that the republicans are anti-blacks and does nothing for us.

What would one expect the Republicans to do for us looking at those numbers? Don't they enjoy power like the democrats. Shouldn't they concentrate on suring up their base?

We are so stupid we lucky we get anything done for us at all.

Have you guys ever thought that black people are anti Republicans and that's a big part of the problem?

Try to take a page from the hispanic community. Most of the hispanics you see came here as uneducated peasants, the educated ones tend to stay home, who had to confront language barriers and other hardships when they came here. Nonetheless they were able to establish themself as a political force in BOTH PARTIES within a relatively short period of time.

How did that happen?

Contrast that with black people. A lot of the black immigrants from the W.I. and Africa are highly educated professionals in comparison to hispanic immigrant, they don't possess the language barrier, for the most part, and they join an established black USA population with its own highly accomplish members and institutions and yet we are falling further behind each year.

How do you account for that?

I'll tell unu. Unlike blacks the hispanics realized that policies that affects their everyday life and is of interest to them is not proprietary to either party. Both parties will react to their demands if they organize, unite and are smart about presenting their ideas.

Since most here are of Jamaican descent let mi put the analogy this way.

Basically the black community in the USA locked themself in a situation similar to garrison politics. And from some of the comments here it's apparent some ites still harbour the mentality of that failed political system.

Actually it's even worse than that, because at least in garrison politics when your party wins you see tangible benefits in your community.

Black people have not experience any tangible benefit for all their years of supporting the Democratic party at a 90% clip.

Just like garrison politics the situation would not change until a wise and courageous, so call, black leader publicly breaks rank with the democratic party. Al Sharpton have increasingly hinted at doing just that but then the democratic party throw him a bone and he is back to toeing the line.

He basically uses his followers as chips to get better deals from the party for himself.

Curse the black republicans all unu want, but in the end they are the only leverage unu have. This is one of the few times when division will will equal political empowerment. The division of the black vote will provide the leverage for both parties to react to our needs.

Truth be told neither party is attending to our needs at this juncture, despite what some might tend to believe. Even taking into consideration the lesser of both evil argument some like to envoke.

Like it's been said before...we just don't know how to get out of our own way. The sooner we come to realize the pivotal role black republicans can play in our quest for empowerment the sooner we will overcome.

Don't forget we were all republicans before 1930. And most of the atrocities done to us were by southern democrats.

You listen to supposedly intellectual and educated black people talk about politics and you can't differentiate the tone from what you hear at your neighborhood barbershop.

You intellectual and educated people are the biggest failure to the black community if those are the best arguments unu can come up with. Put that intellect and education to good use and dig deep into the issues. Quit taking the lazy route of regurgitating was some politician tell you to think and come up with some tangible solutions to help the masses.

People are arguing about this bill and that bill and you know they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Sadly TT continuously contradicts himself on the same topic in the same post. A clear indication he doesn't really have a grip on the issue he is arguing for or against.

It's not about clip and paste when the issue comes up, as an educated person in society one should have some semblance of the issue which we then reinforce with additional research while conducting a debate.

I realized a lot of people around here debate solely by cutting and pasting articles and think they are saying something. They had no knowledge of what they are debating except for what they are cutting and pasting.

quote:

---

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." - Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Vol. III, p. 145-146 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).
"Now I say to you, my fellow citizen, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the Negro whatever. One great evidence is to be found in the fact that at the time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration representing a slaveholding constituency, and not one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them when they signed the Declaration. If they intended to declare the Negro was equal of the white man, they were bound that day and hour to have put the Negroes on an equality with themselves." - Abraham Lincoln, during the October 16, 1858 debate in Peoria, IL with Douglas. "I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable."
- Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation (like other presidents, Lincoln sought to repatriation of freed Blacks to Africa).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shaggybear:
That is my argument...present administration (and those Republican's since Reagan) = "closet" racists while in office.

But the bigger issue here is black people like Cruyff who defend it, without regard for the consequences. How does he defend it, he can't so he tries to change the focus of the argument to Nancy Pelosi. Don't lose sight bro, you are truly a dangerous person and you don't even know it.

---

The first paragraph above seems to me quite plausible. The second paragraph is rubbish .

quote:

---

Originally posted by pelepapa:
Lets see!

All the black institutions and black representatives are aligned with the democratic party.

The Democratic party receives 90% of the black votes in national elections.

---

The terrorist American assumed that killing all black babies is an OPTION to lower crime rate. According to HIS theory, Blacks are born-criminals. That's outrageous!

quote:

---

Originally posted by haitiball:
I still cannot believe a former senior politician in the country that considers itself the center of modern civilization publicly calls for the assassination of my kids and all other kids that look like them just because they are black and no legal action is taken against him. Genocide is a CRIME.

The terrorist American assumed that killing all black babies is an OPTION to lower crime rate. According to HIS theory, Blacks are born-criminals. That's outrageous!

[This message has been edited by haitiball (edited 10-03-2005).]

---

. . .What criminal action? That's what's happening now and it's perfectly legal and, it seems, acceptable. Why do you think most of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are located in minority communities? We need to wake up.

The GOP generally believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. They believe people should succeed on the basis of individual effort and talent. This is why many Republicans oppose Affirmative Action and welfare programs that can help the poor. This may explain why many middle and upper class people, some of whom are Blacks, support the GOP.

Democrats believe in supporting people so they can achieve their full potential. They tend to support public assistance programs over Republicans and allowing people to determine their own destiny free of religion or other doctrines. This is why the Dems are so popular among the poor, many of whom are Black.

Hence, it is how you see life. What perspectives do you hold? Are you conservative or liberal? Most Black conservatives are GOP, while many liberals, many of whom are Black, support the Dems.

However, I do not take into consideration the guy's political affiliation. I only deplore the fact that HE CALLS FOR THE GENOCIDE OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA AS A WAY TO LOWER CRIME RATE and the justice system is doing nothing about it. What do you guys think some former Tutsis and Hutus officials are being prosecuted for? They encouraged genocide. How is Bennett's action different than what those people did? He's advocating GENOCIDE.

(I do get your point Cruyff. I personally believe that caribbean nationals are more republican than democrat eventhough most of us are not aware that the democratic party opposes most of the social values we stand for. The democrats are CONSIDERED more liberal on immigration issues and that's where we fall for the donkey! Sometimes, we even forget that back home we're as conservative as the rocks we live on!)

By the way, my wife and I voted for the Democratic Party in the last election while we firmly opposed same-sex marriage and free-for-all abortion right!!!! We just went with the stream.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeU:
Folks, it's not which party does what for whom but your outlook on life. Republicans (GOP) and Democrats have different philosophical perspectives. It falls under the conservative and liberal view.

The GOP generally believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. They believe people should succeed on the basis of individual effort and talent. This is why many Republicans oppose Affirmative Action and welfare programs that can help the poor. This may explain why many middle and upper class people, some of whom are Blacks, support the GOP.

Democrats believe in supporting people so they can achieve their full potential. They tend to support public assistance programs over Republicans and allowing people to determine their own destiny free of religion or other doctrines. This is why the Dems are so popular among the poor, many of whom are Black.

Hence, it is how you see life. What perspectives do you hold? Are you conservative or liberal? Most Black conservatives are GOP, while many liberals, many of whom are Black, support the Dems.

[This message has been edited by MikeU (edited 10-03-2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruyff14:
. . .that's a set of generalizations that I think we take too far. The largest welfare reform we have had in recent times was under a Democratic President. I've posted what his economic advisers and others close to his administration said about its effects on the poor. Bush is a much bigger spender than Clinton was too on poverty entitlement programmes(the effectiveness is another matter). Those neat categorizations aren't always applicable.

---

Replace all female flight attendants with good looking strippers.
What the hell? The attendants have gotten old and haggard looking.
They don't even serve food anymore, so what's the loss? The
strippers would double, triple, perhaps quadruple the alcohol
consumption and get a "party atmosphere" going in the cabin.

Muslims would be afraid to get on the planes for fear of seeing
naked women. And, of course, every heterosexual businessman in this
country would start flying again hoping to see naked women.

Hijackings would come to a screeching halt and the airline industry
would see record revenue.

Why the hell didn't Bush think of this?

Why do I still have to do everything myself?

Sincerely,

quote:

---

Originally posted by haitiball:
What do you guys think some former Tutsis and Hutus officials are being prosecuted for? They encouraged genocide. How is Bennett's action different than what those people did? He's advocating GENOCIDE.

[This message has been edited by haitiball (edited 10-03-2005).]

---

. . .what I'm saying is take one more step beyond the surface and you'll see that is exactly what groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are doing in minority communities. They're not going to come out like Bennett and actually state such an idea/hypothetical, but it couldn't be clearer. And if you want to get anywhere in the Democratic Party, you have no choice but to take these people's money and advocate their cause-ask Bill Clinton .

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeU:
Those generalizations I made are that – generalizations that can be characterized as the platform principles of both parties. Members of the two parties will not always follow these principles, as you stated well in reference to Bush and Clinton. At times, presidents of either party must do what's best for the nation, and that will mean departing from party values.

---

. . .usually when they depart it's not for the best for the nation .

Do you think that poor, uneducated, people, regardless of race, should have m,ore children than they can reasonably afford to raise?

Do you know that more black women are having babies out of wedlock and many are ill equipped, financially, and emotionally, to raise these children in a healthy, nuturing environment?

While I am not a proponent of forced sterilization, nor abortion, dont you think that educating these mothers and mothers to be about adequate birth control is a noble cause?

Can it be that planned parenthood is trying to do just this?

Why is it that those women are having more babies than they can afford/ Does it have anything to do with the lack of education/ adequate role models within their communities?

Can it be a sympton of an uncaring/callous society?

Why do you suppose people like Bennett, and ome recently departed southern Republican senators have made such disparaging comments about blacks and welfare?

I know what you are doing!

I hate abortionand I do not feel that anyone should use it as birth control.

Does planned parenthood specifically facilitate abortions?

Why are they called planned parenthood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by truetrini:
Cruyff, answer theis question.

Do you think that poor, uneducated, people, regardless of race, should have m,ore children than they can reasonably afford to raise?

Do you know that more black women are having babies out of wedlock and many are ill equipped, financially, and emotionally, to raise these children in a healthy, nuturing environment?

While I am not a proponent of forced sterilization, nor abortion, dont you think that educating these mothers and mothers to be about adequate birth control is a noble cause?

Can it be that planned parenthood is trying to do just this?

Why is it that those women are having more babies than they can afford/ Does it have anything to do with the lack of education/ adequate role models within their communities?

Can it be a sympton of an uncaring/callous society?

Why do you suppose people like Bennett, and ome recently departed southern Republican senators have made such disparaging comments about blacks and welfare?

I know what you are doing!

I hate abortionand I do not feel that anyone should use it as birth control.

Does planned parenthood specifically facilitate abortions?

Why are they called planned parenthood?

You can use all the ifo you want from The Heritage Foundation to support your answers!

---

. . .I know you're not that naive. They're called Planned Parenthood for the same reason we have the 'Patriot' Act and the 'Clear Skies' initiative. If all they were doing was giving family planning advice their efforts would be laudable-my grandmother was a 'family planning' nurse for the better part of 50 years so I know the good work they do. And I'm not Catholic so I certainly have no problem with birth control .

If you have to ask whether Planned Parenthood facilitates abortions then I would suggest you get to know a little more about the subject. Facilitate means make easier to do. Forget the Heritage Foundation and go directly to the Planned Parenthood website:

Where can I get an abortion?

Contact Planned Parenthood® at 1-800-230-PLAN, other women's health centers, or your private clinician. Or call the National Abortion Federation at 1-800-772-9100.

3. A woman is more than a fetus.

Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women.

Does this line of reasoning sound familiar? It should. It is the reasoning that 'justified' legal discrimination based on race in this country not too long ago. If blacks weren't really fully human in the way whites were-there were a lot of actions that could be rationalized.

Choice is good for families.

Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruyff14:
from the Planned Parenthood website again:

[b]3. A woman is more than a fetus.

Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women.

Does this line of reasoning sound familiar? It should. It is the reasoning that 'justified' legal discrimination based on race in this country not too long ago. If blacks weren't really fully human in the way whites were-there were a lot of actions that could be rationalized.

Choice is good for families.

Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open.

This is the abortion as belated birth control argument. If you take it to its logical conclusion then you can justify getting rid of orphaned and unwanted 10-year-olds as well. . .unless you are able to convince yourself of the first argument above-they are not fully human. I don't want to get too explicit-but has anybody here ever seen an aborted 'fetus?' If one had, I am willing to bet that he would not be talking about this issue in the theoretical and 'antiseptic' way that we do.[/B]

---

I have seen videos of abortion and the fetus and it made me sick and angry.

You see little hands, feets, crushed brains of baby chopped or mashed to pieces. It's not a pretty sight..

I know women who had a abortion and all of them are SUICIDAL.

They drink to clear their conscience, can't think straight and condemn themselves.

So much for Plan Parenthood through abortion.

Funnily enough, one of the main families that backed that American Eugenics programme was the Bush family.

Yes, that Bush family.

The good Christian ones!!

What's up bondservant?!?!

The leader of Plan Parenthood

quote:

---

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruyff14:
from the Planned Parenthood website again:

[b]3. A woman is more than a fetus.

Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women.

Does this line of reasoning sound familiar? It should. It is the reasoning that 'justified' legal discrimination based on race in this country not too long ago. If blacks weren't really fully human in the way whites were-there were a lot of actions that could be rationalized.

[/B]

---

My radar always goes up when I hear racism against blacks being analogized to the plight of other "victims." Usually, it's in the Gay or Jewish context and I must confess that I had not heard this counter-argument before in the abortion context. It raises immediately for me the question of what parameters would you impose on the rights of the fetus (if viewed as fully human). For example, would it have property rights that would disable its "older" siblings from fully inheriting the father's property if he died before the "fetus" was born? Or, should a ward be appointed by the judiciary to protect the rights of the fetus upon conception as is the case when someone is unable to make decisions for themselves. I presume the pro-life faction has developed a comprehensive legal framework that would support the "fully-human" concept they advocate.

Also, out of curiousity, why isn't it an "Anti-choice" movement (I can see why the pro-choicers wouldn't choose "Ant-life). It seems that the current labeling of the debate allows for a lot of "ducking the argument" since each group can promote it's own beliefs without having to directly counter the other's. I would think that a more coherent pro-life strategy would involve a pointed rebuttal of the proposition that a woman's right to choose is paramount. Obviously, that rebuttal would open a can of worms as humans pull the plug on other humans (who are incapable of sustaining their own life without assistance) all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahjesty:
My radar always goes up when I hear racism against blacks being analogized to the plight of other "victims." Usually, it's in the Gay or Jewish context and I must confess that I had not heard this counter-argument before in the abortion context. It raises immediately for me the question of what parameters would you impose on the rights of the fetus (if viewed as fully human). For example, would it have property rights that would disable its "older" siblings from fully inheriting the father's property if he died before the "fetus" was born? Or, should a ward be appointed by the judiciary to protect the rights of the fetus upon conception as is the case when someone is unable to make decisions for themselves. I presume the pro-life faction has developed a comprehensive legal framework that would support the "fully-human" concept they advocate.

Also, out of curiousity, why isn't it an "Anti-choice" movement (I can see why the pro-choicers wouldn't choose "Ant-life). It seems that the current labeling of the debate allows for a lot of "ducking the argument" since each group can promote it's own beliefs without having to directly counter the other's. I would think that a more coherent pro-life strategy would involve a pointed rebuttal of the proposition that a woman's right to choose is paramount. Obviously, that rebuttal would open a can of worms as humans pull the plug on other humans (who are incapable of sustaining their own life without assistance) all the time.

---

Firstly, I don’t consider it an analogy with racism-I see it is an extension of racism, because the abortion industry targets the black community disproportionately. Some of these issues have already been addressed or at least have started to be addressed by State and Federal legislatures and the Court system. Inheritance rights of the unborn already has a large body of precedent-quite a few states already grant them equal rights with their brothers and sisters in terms of inheritance-which I think is perfectly appropriate.

Just last year Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which makes it a crime to harm a ‘fetus’ in the commission of a violent crime. The reason why Scott Peterson was sentenced to death was that the jury found a ‘special circumstance’ for killing what would have been his son(under California Law). You’re right in that the key issue is whether a woman’s right to ‘privacy’ as the Supreme Court ‘found’ implied in the constitution to tortuously justify Roe v. Wade, trumps a fetus/unborn baby’s right to life(I recognize there’s a problem when there is a genuinely significant threat to a woman’s health or life when there’s a pregnancy complication-I think we ignore though the physical and emotional health problems that many women who have abortions suffer).

As Planned Parenthood and pro-choice/anti-life (the terms used shouldn’t really have an impact on the substantive debate) groups argue-the ‘fetus’ may become a burden and cause stress. That is also true of children in general-but you can’t kill a child after it’s been born for any of these reasons-so the only way one can justify getting rid of them for that reason is if one argues that they are not really human in the first place, which must always be the genesis of the debate. I’m yet to encounter a pro-‘choice’ person who supports unfettered abortions who can justify killing unborn babies/fetuses without using this logic-as Clinton’s Surgeon General said-she was there to end America’s love affair with the fetus. My analogy/extension of the racism factor is that it is the same logic that was used to perpetrate all kinds of wrongs on the black community in this country.

No divisive issue can be properly addressed without opening a can of worms to some degree. The thought process of appointing a guardian to make 'end of life' decisions(like pulling the plug) is that person is ‘in theory’ doing what the incapacitated person told them to do if they ever got into that state or what in their judgment the person would have wanted them to do(if it wasn’t expressly stated). I don’t think that analogy carries over to the typical abortion situation where it can’t be a legitimate argument that the ‘fetus’ wanted to die or it is in their best interest to be destroyed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeU:
Folks, it's not which party does what for whom but your outlook on life. Republicans (GOP) and Democrats have different philosophical perspectives. It falls under the conservative and liberal view.

The GOP generally believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. They believe people should succeed on the basis of individual effort and talent. This is why many Republicans oppose Affirmative Action and welfare programs that can help the poor. This may explain why many middle and upper class people, some of whom are Blacks, support the GOP.

Democrats believe in supporting people so they can achieve their full potential. They tend to support public assistance programs over Republicans and allowing people to determine their own destiny free of religion or other doctrines. This is why the Dems are so popular among the poor, many of whom are Black.

Hence, it is how you see life. What perspectives do you hold? Are you conservative or liberal? Most Black conservatives are GOP, while many liberals, many of whom are Black, support the Dems.

[This message has been edited by MikeU (edited 10-03-2005).]

---

MikeU the first mistake is to assume that affirmative action and welfare programs are democratic programs. These programs are as much republican programs as they are democrats. These programs have survive democratic and republican administration. The big difference is in their method of implementation.

Some people might coin your statement above a bit differently. Some might argue that the GOP believe that self reliance and personal responsibility are the keys to individual success. Minor shift in words, but totally different meanings. Many republican don't oppose affirmative action and welfare programs on the basis that they don't want to help poor people, but rather they don't believe those programs as implemented by the democrats fit in with their outlook on promoting individual success.

Some might argue that the Democrats programs support poor people into remaining poor and dependent and restrict them from achieving their full potential, and that is true for the most part.

The problem is you have racists and classists on both sides who frame these differences to create division between the rich and poor and blacks and whites, or just to maintain political power.

The aim of most poor people is to achieve some economic success. If that's your aim and you realize that most people who are where you want to be supports a certain ideology, doesn't it makes sense to think that maybe their ideology had something to do with their "success".

Would anyone ask a homeless man for home buying tips?

Figuratively most of us are doing just that, and then wondering why we can't seem to attain a house.

My personal take on this issue is that on the basis of lifting people out of poverty to self-sufficiency the republican economic platform is usually more successful over the democrats platform.

Despite my belief, most of the time I find it hard to full-heartedly support the republican programs because they tend to be implemented in a harsh and mean-spirited fashion that leaves most people vulnerable with no safety net while they strive to move out of poverty. Also I am more of a socialist and I realize that no matter which economic program is implemented, democrat or republican, most of the population is still going to remain poor, and there lies my concern.

My ideal is a combination of both, which realistically is not politically feasible in this country. I think George Bush frame it correctly when he described himself as a compassionate conservative. I don't think he has governed in that fashion for the most part, mainly due to the reality of politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruyff14:
Firstly, I don’t consider it an analogy with racism-I see it is an extension of racism, because the abortion industry targets the black community disproportionately. Some of these issues have already been addressed or at least have started to be addressed by State and Federal legislatures and the Court system. Inheritance rights of the unborn already has a large body of precedent-quite a few states already grant them equal rights with their brothers and sisters in terms of inheritance-which I think is perfectly appropriate.

Just last year Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which makes it a crime to harm a ‘fetus’ in the commission of a violent crime. The reason why Scott Peterson was sentenced to death was that the jury found a ‘special circumstance’ for killing what would have been his son(under California Law). You’re right in that the key issue is whether a woman’s right to ‘privacy’ as the Supreme Court ‘found’ implied in the constitution to tortuously justify Roe v. Wade, trumps a fetus/unborn baby’s right to life(I recognize there’s a problem when there is a genuinely significant threat to a woman’s health or life when there’s a pregnancy complication-I think we ignore though the physical and emotional health problems that many women who have abortions suffer).

As Planned Parenthood and pro-choice/anti-life (the terms used shouldn’t really have an impact on the substantive debate) groups argue-the ‘fetus’ may become a burden and cause stress. That is also true of children in general-but you can’t kill a child after it’s been born for any of these reasons-so the only way one can justify getting rid of them for that reason is if one argues that they are not really human in the first place, which must always be the genesis of the debate. I’m yet to encounter a pro-‘choice’ person who supports unfettered abortions who can justify killing unborn babies/fetuses without using this logic-as Clinton’s Surgeon General said-she was there to end America’s love affair with the fetus. My analogy/extension of the racism factor is that it is the same logic that was used to perpetrate all kinds of wrongs on the black community in this country.

No divisive issue can be properly addressed without opening a can of worms to some degree. The thought process of appointing a guardian to make 'end of life' decisions(like pulling the plug) is that person is ‘in theory’ doing what the incapacitated person told them to do if they ever got into that state or what in their judgment the person would have wanted them to do(if it wasn’t expressly stated). I don’t think that analogy carries over to the typical abortion situation where it can’t be a legitimate argument that the ‘fetus’ wanted to die or it is in their best interest to be destroyed.

[This message has been edited by cruyff14 (edited 10-05-2005).]

---

I am happy to see that some thought has been given to those items although I guarantee you that they will be forcefully challenged. BTW! what is your position on when the legal rights would kick in, on conception or sometime later?

I am noting your facination with the targeting of black women for abortions. Do the statistics play out that proportionately more blacks abort than whites? If not, why is the "extension" appropriate? Even without support from that angle, I am not sure how you can escape the reality that ultimately the "targeted" woman has to exert her own will regardless of the perceived coercion, while there was no similar "free will" in the context of the racist legislation.

Quite frankly, I think this will be an infinite debate because humans will not muster the same outrage over the termination of a recently cojoined cell as it would for something approximating a more "human" form and any attempt to draw a line along the continuum (e.g., the trimester approach) is fraught with issues. In fact, I would recommend that pro-lifers not oppose things like the morning-after pill, because the availability of those more humane "mistake" remedies would dramatically reduce the support for abortions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahjesty:
I am happy to see that some thought has been given to those items although I guarantee you that they will be forcefully challenged. BTW! what is your position on when the legal rights would kick in, on conception or sometime later?

I am noting your facination with the targeting of black women for abortions. Do the statistics play out that proportionately more blacks abort than whites? If not, why is the "extension" appropriate? Even without support from that angle, I am not sure how you can escape the reality that ultimately the "targeted" woman has to exert her own will regardless of the perceived coercion, while there was no similar "free will" in the context of the racist legislation.

Quite frankly, I think this will be an infinite debate because humans will not muster the same outrage over the termination of a recently cojoined cell as it would for something approximating a more "human" form and any attempt to draw a line along the continuum (e.g., the trimester approach) is fraught with issues. In fact, I would recommend that pro-lifers not oppose things like the morning-after pill, because the availability of those more humane "mistake" remedies would dramatically reduce the support for abortions.

Anyways, keep up the good fight as I don't think I have ever met anyone who is truly "pro-abortion."

---

. . .wherever there are millions of dollars and political power involved change will be forcefully challenged . As to my 'extension' of the racism factor, and in answer to your question, yes the statistics play out that proportionately more blacks abort than white-and in quite an alarming way. The abortion rate among black women is about three times that of white women in this country. Since Roe v. Wade it is estimated that almost 15 million abortions have been performed on black women. The 'extension' is absolutely appropriate when you consider how groups like Planned Parenthood were founded, by whom they were founded, why they were founded, what their goals are today, and what their M.O. is in accomplishing them-they are extremely successful.

I am not arguing that the 'extension' is in every way analogous to the black experience with regard to segregation etc.-it is just that-an extension of the same implicit racism(I would argue that it isn't really that implicit at all-these groups don't really attempt to hide what they're doing). My analogy focused on the logic that went behind justifying denial of rights to a class of persons-that is they are/were not 'fully' human.

Of course I realize there are issues with 'stages of development' and how these are treated but up to last year partial birth abortion was perfectly legal. If we actually knew what was being done in this kind of procedure and couldn't muster up the requisite outrage to get this procedure banned-then I would suggest there is little that could wake us up-short of showing such a procedure on the evening news to take us out of the theoretical and abstract world of 'fetuses' and show us what we are really doing.

It is also estimated that about 60% of black women who get pregnant(in their lifetime) will have an abortion. We have consistently underestimated and at times utterly ignored the physical and emotional damage this wreaks on the health of the community.I will expound on this at a later time.

Abortion is no different than the Nazis sending millions of Jewish kids to the gas chambers.