From Anne Hendershott at the Witherspoon Institute:
“It’s never been a more dangerous time to be a black baby. . . The figures are shocking: Nearly half of all African American pregnancies end in abortion. Since 1973, the number of abortions by African American women has totaled more than twelve million. In some localities, including Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, and Georgia, more than half of all abortions are performed on black women. Similar rates are found for black women in New York City. . . The black community has already been changed by abortion. At a time when 50 percent of their unborn children are aborted, many within the black community are beginning to recognize that their community has been devastated by abortion.”
You should read the rest of Hendershott’s article. Also, John Piper preached a sermon last year on racism and abortion. You can download it here or listen to it below.[audio:http://media.desiringgod.org/audio/2007/20070121.mp3]
Truth Unites... and Divides
â€œItâ€™s never been a more dangerous time to be a black baby. . . The figures are shocking: Nearly half of all African American pregnancies end in abortion.”
I’ve read somewhere that upwards of 80-90% of African-Americans are voting for Barack Obama.
That would mean that there are large numbers of professing African-American Christians voting for pro-abortion Barack Obama too.
I honestly would be willing to bet that this is a class issue and not a race issue.
Let’s face it, while blacks only make up 14% of the population, that 14% is much more highly concentrated in the lower economic strata.
This is where Mike Huckabee’s statement that the Republican party is pro-birth, and not pro-life really begins to come to light.
Let’s face facts: how many of those Crisis Pregnancy Centers are in destitute areas?
How many black women, much less POOR black women are getting the same sweet offers to have all of the medical care paid for during pregnancies if they’ll give their children up for adoption? Especially the black women in Watts, Compton, Harlem or Bronzeville?
These questions could go on and on for days. Yeah, there’s a race component to it, but I guarantee, if you looked closely at the numbers, you’d see that the bulk of those people getting the abortions are not the ones in the middle class and upper class income brackets.
This is no surprise, since the founders of the pro-abortion movement (Sanger, etc.) were eugenenicists who wanted to wipe out the black population. And they largely succeeded.
You are correct Darius…however, while Sanger was a eugenicist, she favored sterilization as the primary means. She found abortion morally repulsive.
nice dodge Darius.
If this is a purely a race issue, then those on the right can do a fake gasp and feign shock.
However, if this is a class issue, then Republican policies regarding the poor have to be taken into account regarding how we deal with getting that abortion rate down in the economically destitute black areas in the country.
And you on the left can continue to hold your breath and think some new “program” will bring abortion under control.
The reality is that this is both a class and race issue and the one solution you on the left don’t want to discuss is the obvious.
So continue to bail water instead of fixing the leak.
where are you going to fix the leak?
sure, overturn Roe v. Wade.
Is that going to make abortion illegal in any purple state? More than likely not.
Is it going to affect the abortion rate in New York? Absolutely not.
So, those six abortions that were happening in Arkansas? Great, you’ll stop those.
I’m saying the same thing I’ve been saying: want to stop abortions? Stop unwanted pregnancies. And as a nation, I am sorry to say, we are well past being able to use moral arguments to keep single women from having sex before marriage. Heck, even the church going daughter of the right wing governor couldn’t keep her knees together.
Keep telling me that everything else but education will work. And I’ll show you an ever rising abortion rate that links lack of education and lack of economic status to higher abortion rates.
Your naive if you think you are going to bring down the number of abortions with Roe still the law of the land. You have to start there.
Now once that is done, then yes it probably will have little effect initially on certain states, but they certainly won’t have Federal dollars to perform them with.
Also, that will allow grass root candidates on both parties to get elected that oppose abortion. With Roe in place there is almost no chance of having a Democrat running that is pro-life. Remove Roe and that becomes possible again.
Take federal dollars out of Planned Parenthood and you will start seeing unplanned pregnancies fall.
And gimme a break with the old tired argument that you can’t stop sex. Nobody is saying that. But how about stopping Federally subsidized murder and then we can move forward to speaking to other issues.
Speaking of Education. Let’s blow up the Department of Education and we could possibly see some Education without teaching kids how to put condoms on bananas.
Paul, this is where you should finally address my comment from the other thread. You keep throwing out this hogwash about how repealing Roe v Wade won’t make any difference, but I laid out a clear and concise explanation why it will, both legally and culturally. Please respond.
I was spammed. And it’s way too long to type again.
Okay, we’ll have to wait for Denny.
Outlawing murder, rape, and robbery obviously hasn’t stopped any of those things from happening, so should we just allow them to be legal as well?
The logic that outlawing abortion won’t reduce the number of abortions is almost incomprehensible its so ridiculous.
Plus, you still have the issue of liberty. Even if overturning Roe didn’t drop abortions, the right to life is still an unalienable right, it needs to be given inherently.
Your talk of education is beside the point. Do we not first outlaw murder, rape, robbery, then move to figure out how to reduce the number of crimes committed?
These arguments are getting ridiculous.
Many on the religious right want to talk about slavery, rape, robbery, murder and other such heinous crimes using the same language that they use to talk about abortion.
The problem is this: murder (in the legal sense), rape, robbery and slavery haven’t been legal for the last 35 years. No one has formed multiple lobbying groups to keep the interests of the murderers, rapists and robbers up front for 35 years.
The problem is that abortion rights are seen as an equality issue, a privacy issue, a choice issue, and until the government steps in and legally defines life as starting at conception, it’s not (legally) a life and death issue.
And, if you go to up to anyone outside of our circle of evangelicals, be they in the right, left or middle (in other words, 70% of the population), and you call them a murderer or a supporter of murder, they’re going to call you a jerk and worse. And those aren’t people on “the left.” Those are your average ordinary Joe the Six Pack Plumbers.
So, talk about liberty and murder and the whatnot all you want. But until you change the vocabulary and the way that it’s used, you won’t get anywhere.
Which is exactly why the people on the religious right that want to go around and around about why sex ed is wrong are doing nothing but keeping the abortion rates at a disgustingly high level.
So Paul, I suppose you would have said the same things to abolitionists, right?
The point you are missing is the reason that pro-life people, evangelicals or otherwise, keep framing abortion in reference to murder and liberty is because that is precisely what the abortion issue is about, regardless of how the Federal government wants to define it.
The right to life is a right granted by God, as our Founders wisely understood. And it is not the government’s job to define that right, merely to protect that right. But then again, most on the left would rather use the Declaration and Constitution as toliet paper than as a basis for law.
Your logic is strange. One what grounds would you suggest that they argue their point? That the procedure is too expensive?
And again, how in the world can you argue that outlawing the practice is not going to reduce the number of abortions?
Another question for you…what do you think would happen if the issue were allowed to go to the states?
How many states would actually outlaw it? And I would beg to differ with you on the Joe Six Pack the Plumber. Most people that I know that are voting for Obama are pro-life. They are just convinced he’s not as pro-infanticide as he is, ala Donald Miller.
I would venture to bet that most people in the US are against legalized abortions.
So I did a little research on the issue.
It seems like the national sentiment on legalized abortions fluctuates (as with most issues). It now SEEMS that sentiment is in favor of the pro-choice side, however, it is still a hotly contested issue.
But again, regardless of how the government wants to define it or what people believe, abortion violates the fundamental, GOD GIVEN, right to life. Therefore, any government that allows abortion is violating one of the most fundamental rights an individual has. With the people’s approval or otherwise.
For the last time, it’s not entirely clear that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would impact one single abortion. An overturn of Roe v. Wade would ONLY return the issue to a states’ rights concern. Do you not understand that?
If my logic is strange, then so is Supreme Court Justice Alito’s. He is on record as saying basically the same thing that I am, that the only politically expedient and constitutionally sound way to wipe out abortion is by taking it out piecemeal, not by overturning Roe v. Wade, which will be far harder than anyone on the right wants to admit.
“The right to life is a right granted by God, as our Founders wisely understood. And it is not the governmentâ€™s job to define that right, merely to protect that right. But then again, most on the left would rather use the Declaration and Constitution as toliet paper than as a basis for law.”
I love it when people make the right/left divide argument so stupidly. Look around your own side of the aisle, CH. Upwards of 60% of the people in the Republican party are pro-choice. And I know lots and lots of pro-life liberals who think that the government should be paying for everything from cradle to grave. Darius will tell you that Mike Huckabee (the only candidate that had a right to life constitutional amendment as part of his platform) is one of them. As for your absolutely asinine assumption about how people on the political spectrum view our governmental framing documents, I will bite my tongue, because not only is what you say baseless, but it’s also completely ignorant.
Paul, 40-55% of Americans are pro-choice (depending on the definition of the term), so how in the world do you get 60% of Republicans???
“Mike Huckabee (the only candidate that had a right to life constitutional amendment as part of his platform)”
I believe Ron Paul had something along these lines in his platform, just to be completely accurate.
Denny, please check the spam filter so we can see Paul’s comment back around #9.
I’ve never seen a pro-choice number as low as 40% that didn’t come from an obviously biased source.
Most of the numbers I’ve seen have been in the 60-67% range. At which point, all that would mean is that the makeup of those that consider themselves Republicans are in line with the make up of Americans as a whole.
It depends on your definition of “pro-choice,” LIKE I SAID. If you define pro-choice in the case of the health of the mother and nothing else, then probably 55-60% of Americans are that. If you include rape or incest, the % drops to about 50 percent, and if you include abortion on demand, the support drops to 40% or less. But usually, the typical poll shows 50-55% support for abortion (with the parameters ambiguous). That said, there is no possible way, for anyone who knows the slightest thing about statistics, that Republicans would be 60% pro-choice when only half of the general populace is such. Now if you want to define pro-choice as only abortions which are done to save the mother, then yes, 60% is probably more than fair (I would probably fall in this camp, not that an abortion should be done with the intent of killing the baby but that everything would be done to save it while also focusing on the life of the mother).
“If you include rape or incest, the % drops to about 50 percent…”
link to a poll done by a non-partisan group to back that number up, please?
Go ahead bite your tongue, because you are so blinded by your presuppositions that you are totally missing what I am saying.
First of all, I SAID OUTLAWING ABORTION, not specifically overturning Roe v. Wade. I am fully aware that overturning Roe v. Wade is just the beginning. And I want the issue to go to the states! But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not talking the pragmatics of it, I’m talking about that it should be outlawed on the basis that it violates a fundamental right, given by God.
Second, your comments just seeth with contempt because you assume I’m just some Bush backing Republican that supports John McCain. But you would be completely wrong! I’m not voting for John McCain (I can’t stand him most of the time), and to me Bush has not only betrayed Conservatives he has done major damage to true Conservativism.
I am fully aware that MANY Republicans have trashed the Constitution, as many of them only pay lip service to it. However, Democrats have open contempt for our founding documents (for evidence of this look no further than their wonderful candidate, House Leader, Senate Leader).
Tell me Paul, since I’m the ignorant one, which side of the political spectrum is more likely to respect the Constitution? Republicans are becoming worse and worse, but at least there are still some that are fighting the tide. As far as Democrats, they aren’t even pretending anymore. If you can’t see that then maybe you should stop biting your tongue and open your eyes.
Why must we play the race card? Generally, conservatives are opposed to doing so, but make an exception for the issue of abortion. Generally conservatives are fond of arguing that disproportionate impact is not equal to racism. More blacks are in prison, on welfare, falsely accused of crimes, contract HIV/AIDS, etc., but conservatives invariably deny that racismexplains any of these. Interesting. Sounds like reverse racial demagoguery to me.
So, Margret Sanger, the founder of PP was a eugenicist. And PP has its origins in eugenics. Therefore, it must presently be a pro-eugenics organization. The United States was founded by slaveholders and protected chattel slavery. So, it must presently be a pro-slavery country. Or at least, its pro-slavery origins means the country is forever tainted and tied to its pro-slavery past. Really?
I can’t wait for the day that Paul’s comment gets unspammed. 🙂
Or for the day that disputatio makes a logical argument.
Planned Parenthood is not that far removed from Sanger, and today its main objective (besides making money) is greasing the wheels of population control. And nothing a white liberal elite loathes more than the underclass, which is made up of mostly minorities in this country.
So to some extent, it’s not racism but class warfare. Does that make it any better for the millions of blacks who are being wiped out???
“Or at least, its pro-slavery origins means the country is forever tainted and tied to its pro-slavery past. Really?”
I wouldn’t disagree with that.
Look at the way we deal with the race issue 124 years after the fact. The first 80 years after the civil war were spent with the US essentially being an apartheid state. The following 40 plus years have been spent, to varying degrees trying to clean up the mess.
Sure, on a governmental level, the mess is largely clean.
But on a social level? Please. Jesus will return well before we see a nation of people that truly RESPECTS race in this country.
And we ARE poorer for it.
“Jesus will return well before we see a nation of people that truly RESPECTS race in this country.”
He will return before ANY nation respects race. Remember, by comparison, this country is one of the least racist in the world. Europe is extremely racist, Africa is defined by in-fighting between slightly different ethnic groups and tribes, Asia is full of anti-other Asian sentiment. Because this country is so racially and ethnically mixed, and because of its Judeo-Christian heritage, it is ahead of the curve. That doesn’t mean that tons of work still needs to be done, but just that it has done a great job of fixing the problems thus far.
“Tell me Paul, since Iâ€™m the ignorant one, which side of the political spectrum is more likely to respect the Constitution? Republicans are becoming worse and worse, but at least there are still some that are fighting the tide. As far as Democrats, they arenâ€™t even pretending anymore. If you canâ€™t see that then maybe you should stop biting your tongue and open your eyes.”
It all depends on how you view the Constitution.
It is not disrespectful to the constitution to read it word for word and try to adhere to it the way that the founding fathers created it in the late 1780’s.
HOWEVER, it is also not disrespectful to the constitution to read it as a living and breathing document. Especially seeing as some of those founding fathers (especially Jefferson and Franklin) were fairly forward thinking.
If anything, it is unfair to those same founding fathers who were paving such new ground to say that their document ISN’T a living document. There is no way that they could have foreseen $150K hospital stays (people would have just died if they needed that much care in the 18th century). There is no way that they could have foreseen $100K college educations. There is no way that they could have foreseen a country that would become an urban society as opposed to a rural one. Heck, they didn’t even think that blacks were real people, and the american style of slavery was one of the few that had no rules on the books about abusing slaves.
If you want to debate the merits of the the two views of the constitution, that’s fine. But to say that I, as a liberal, don’t respect the constitution? Please, just give it a rest. Goldwater, Will and Buckley would have never stooped to such a level. If you’re going to call yourself a conservative, then adhere to their standards.
“by comparison, this country is one of the least racist in the world. Europe is extremely racist”
How’s that now?
I’m not saying I don’t believe you but explain how you are so far ahead of Europe in your tolerance levels?
Europe has significant problems (in France, Britain, and elsewhere) with anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hate. Much of Europe is probably not that far from another Bosnia-like Muslim cleansing, only the next one will be bigger. Muslim immigrants are growing at very fast rates while the native Europeans are not reproducing, which means that in another decade or two, Muslims will dominate the continent (especially at the more youthful levels). And, as recent events and polls have shown, the second-generation Muslim immigrants are much more radical than their parents, contrary to what one would expect. So, while Muslim youth riot in Paris because of the horrible unemployment rates and Muslim punks in Britain continue planning to bomb every mode of transportation in London, the distaste for Muslim immigrants among the native populaces grows. Something has to give, and if history is any indicator (and it usually is), mass slaughter will be the result. Those ethnic tensions are pretty much non-existent here in America. Almost all legal immigrants assimilate into our culture and lose their previous identity for a new “American” one. Jew marries Swede, Greek marries Chinese, German marries Korean (I fit there). People just don’t care about races or ethnic groups (that is, except for politicians and liberals and a few hicks in Alabama).
I agree with most of what you say about Europe. However, I do believe you have the wrong view of Muslims because you think most of them are extremists (I assume that’s what you mean by the term ‘radical’). Muslim extremists are actually the extreme minority (akin to Fundamentalist Christians in America; they exist and there are a significant number, but they are a minority by far). Have you been reading Phillip Jenkins? He’s great (seriously, he’s the man).
Also, your last statement puzzles me, because many people (besides politicians, liberals, and a few hicks in Alabama) DO care about race. Even in towns and schools that are segregated, the blacks hang out with the blacks, the latinos with the latinos, the Asians with the Asians, and the whites with the whites. I agree that racism isn’t a huge problem in America per se, but to just shrug it off and act like nobody cares is a bit near-sighted. It may not be as prevalent as in the 50s and 60s, but it’s still very much alive. From what I’ve observed, probably the most persecuted group of people in terms of race are the Mexicans. Also, I’m not speaking of racism just by white people, because I believe many blacks are every bit as guilty as the whites.
John, are you the same John that usually comments? If so (or if not), I have to commend you, that was a very thoughtful comment. 🙂
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but racism is one of those things that only gets worse if everyone is talking about it. Plenty of people just live their lives and don’t really care. Yes, they may segregate, but that’s not racism, that’s just comfort zones. We need to be careful to keep a sense of proportion when we talk about racism. For example, Obama failed to do so a few months back when he said he could no more throw Rev. Wright under the bus than his grandmother for saying that she was uncomfortable in some black neighborhoods. What Obama did there was despicable and lessened the meaning of racism. Being a bit concerned for your safety in a black neighborhood notorious for crime is very different than a pastor who spreads lies and hate against another race. Likewise, groups of people who naturally segregate according to culture or ethnicity or economic status is very different than a group of thugs terrorizing the minorities in their area.
As for Europe… I didn’t mean that the Muslims would instigate the bloodshed (besides those who are already causing havoc on a relatively low scale). I meant that the native Europeans will tire of the riots and bombings and allowances for sharia law and rise up and do something about it. I’m not terribly familiar with Jenkins, but I’ve read a bunch of Mark Steyn. 🙂 However, I would somewhat disagree that radical Muslims are the “extreme” minority. Yes, they may still be the minority, but not by as much as you may think. Polls have shown that a pretty healthy percent of European Muslims approved of the 9/11 attacks and believe that sharia law should be the law of the land in their adopted country. What’s worse, those numbers are growing as the young Muslims become more radical. The cause for this trend toward extremism among second generation immigrants can at least in part be blamed on the multiculturalism cult that the West has prostrated itself to. Europe has largely lost all sense of itself, and can no longer offer anything to which Muslim immigrants can assimilate. So, left jobless and rudderless, they are easy prey to the radical imams who teach hate throughout the mosques of Europe.