I hate to even have to comment on this, no less link to an article with the subtitle "Ex-education secretary tied crime rate to aborting black babies". However, since this is going to stir up and muddy the whole pro-abort/pro-life debate, I feel I must get an early salvo in.
I listened to the entire call to Bill Bennett’s show, and the caller was asking about Social Security to start with, basically stating that if Roe v. Wade had not happened, we wouldn’t have a S.S. crisis now. (This is true – 44 million extra workers would quite easily offset the increases in Social Security costs for the senior population.) However, Mr. Bennett makes an excellent (and easily overseeable) point here: we cannot fall into the laziness of relying on economics as an argument against abortion. Economics is very often cited as a case *for* abortion. It is more crucial to keep the abortion debate framed in morality – otherwise we start down the slippery slope of pragmatism and utilitarianism. It is *always* better to do the morally correct action than the economically advantageous action.
Here is where Mr. Bennett got into trouble. If we start to use utilitarianism in the abortion debate, then it can easily be turned around to state that, given all the black men in jail, wouldn’t it have been better for society if they were aborted, rather than that they commit these crimes? This is a grossly false argument (which Mr. Bennett pointed out), because we cannot frame the abortion argument in pragmatism or "how it helps society". We’ve already fallen into this trap in the past, trying to argue against a "culture of death" born out of abortion and the death penalty. However, these kinds of arguments tend to fall on deaf ears – ears of people that would rather be concerned with self than their surrounding culture. There is also no way to prove or disprove what would/would not have happened if a certain person was/wasn’t aborted. All we can do with these arguments is speculate at best, or more likely, be ridiculed. (You’ve seen the billboards about praying to God to cure cancer, AIDS, and poverty, and God answers that he sent people to do those things, but we aborted them. Putting words in God’s mouth always ends in ridicule from those being debated against.)
At any rate, the argument that Mr. Bennett put forward is not racist and pro-abortion, but rather anti-abortion, period! If we want to find examples of abortion being argued for racist reasons, we just need to look to our own history with Margaret Sanger. She was a eugenicist, in league with the Nazi party of Germany (until it became politically unpopular to be known as a Nazi proselytizer), who among her historical "accomplishments" is known as the "mother of birth control" and the founder of Planned Parenthood in the United States. What is less known is that she placed the first birth control and abortion clinics in certain racially distinctive neighborhoods, purportedly in the name of eliminating poverty (see fallacious argument from economics above). However, her real agenda was to reduce the number of blacks and Eastern Europeans being born in the United States. Abortion and birth control has its roots in racism – in fact, with racism so radical, that it was allied with Nazi eugenics/genocide.
So, before we beginning talking about abortion and racism, let’s get our facts from history straight first. Next, we need to keep the abortion debate framed in morality ("thou shalt not kill" – regardless of race), not in economics or utilitarianism. The pro-abort crowd cannot win on moral grounds – this is why they want to change the field of battle to someplace that they think they have convincing arguments. We cannot allow that, or we lose the battle.
BTW, a wonderful site about this: http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html