Herman Cain Herman Cain: Planned Parenthood is Plotting Genocide Against 'Black Babies'

[specsaregood]

3- What about "white babies" , they are not being genocided? His claim creates the impression that abortions are targeted at genocide of "black"babies as some sort of race war, do you agree with that?

FWIW: Blacks account for around 14% of the US population, yet account for over 30% of the abortions.

 

[erowe1]

1- His view suggests mind of a bigot or racist. In reality it's probably "abused child" syndrome or "separate water cooler" syndrome or trying to please his audience.
Would this even be a question if he said he won't have a Jew or Catholic in his cabinet?

It shows that he's prejudiced against certain religious views. We all are. I don't see anything wrong with that. How does that equate to racism?

 

[RabbitMan]

FWIW: Blacks account for around 14% of the US population, yet account for over 30% of the abortions.

I would blame that on a cultural difference, just like the higher ratio of young black men(1-in-9) in prison due to drug-related activities(read:War on Drugs) is a cultural issue. I don't think the War on Drugs was a deliberate attempt to incarcerate a race because a lot of assumptions were made. Also, who the heck WAS NOT into Eugenics in the early 20th century? Before you mark someone for that kind of thinking, put it into perspective at least.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[RabbitMan]

And the war on drugs has been very much a race war.

I think you are simply misinterpreting the data. I would argue that almost anyone involved in Planned Parenthood does not hold a malicious intent to suppress minorities. The same with those in the DEA or otherwise. What I see is a culture of poverty utilizing the resources it has for the circumstances it faces, and a crusade against mind-altering substances letting those who are more wealthy/influential get off more easily. What results is obvious, but I don't see where you can find the conclusions regarding intent.

 

[JCLibertarian]

Though I am sure he and the media would be in an uproar if someone refused to appoint blacks. I guess demonizing an entire group of people(1 billion and growing) is ok as long as it fits the agenda of fueling propaganda and paranoia for perpetual war. This just proves Muslims are second class citizens in America. I am not even saying that their is a Muslim qualified for a cabinet level position, but this notion that someone should be denied a job based on religious beliefs, or race for that matter, as oppose to merit is absurd, and should be scolded in a society predicated on meritocracy. If someone replaced Muslim for Jew(the ADL would demand an apology and a donation to the Holocaust Museum), or Muslim for Black, or Muslim for Latino, the guy would be blackballed(besmirched by the Media and the SPLc would put him and his supporters on a hate group watch list), especially if he was right. This just exposes the evident group favoritism practiced by the State and by the society at large. Groups are pitted and divided against each other, some groups are put above others, to strengthen the overall power of the state. The State, through this divisiveness and group favoritism, just distracts us from the real issues. It is kind of like a prison, we are all prisoners, and as of right now we are split into gangs fighting over the crumbs, when are goal should be to work together to break out of the prison.

 

[JCLibertarian]

Black people were specifically targeted by Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. He is right on this.

They aren't giving forced abortions, and no fetus has the right to the body of another person, at least if you accept the principle of self ownership. I don't see how women voluntarily aborting fetuses constitutes genocide. Black women are not "killing" black babies, or trying to eliminate blacks from the population, they are just ending their pregnancy.

 

[erowe1]

no fetus has the right to the body of another person, at least if you accept the principle of self ownership.

I don't accept that principle, and neither should anyone else. All parents have the God given obligation to take care of their children, which, if you insist on looking at everything in terms of property rights, is another way of saying that children own property in their parents. This is true of the pre-born just as it is of the born.

 

[erowe1]

I guess demonizing an entire group of people(1 billion and growing) is ok

You mean judging a person by what that person believes? Of course that's ok. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[specsaregood]

I think you are simply misinterpreting the data. I would argue that almost anyone involved in Planned Parenthood does not hold a malicious intent to suppress minorities. The same with those in the DEA or otherwise. What I see is a culture of poverty utilizing the resources it has for the circumstances it faces, and a crusade against mind-altering substances letting those who are more wealthy/influential get off more easily. What results is obvious, but I don't see where you can find the conclusions regarding intent.

You see, I never mentioned "intent"; I usually avoid that because who can know the true intent of anothers' actions except themselves -- and sometimes not even then. I'd rather look at the results or how this stuff works in practice. And what I see is a drug war that has laws that end up giving harsher punishments to minorities than whites and abortion laws/culture that ends up performing 2x as many abortions on blacks as other groups. Both the drug war and the abortion laws look like genocide or a race war when you look at its net effects.

 

[ExPatPaki]

Though I am sure he and the media would be in an uproar if someone refused to appoint blacks. I guess demonizing an entire group of people(1 billion and growing) is ok as long as it fits the agenda of fueling propaganda and paranoia for perpetual war. This just proves Muslims are second class citizens in America. I am not even saying that their is a Muslim qualified for a cabinet level position, but this notion that someone should be denied a job based on religious beliefs, or race for that matter, as oppose to merit is absurd, and should be scolded in a society predicated on meritocracy. If someone replaced Muslim for Jew(the ADL would demand an apology and a donation to the Holocaust Museum), or Muslim for Black, or Muslim for Latino, the guy would be blackballed(besmirched by the Media and the SPLc would put him and his supporters on a hate group watch list), especially if he was right. This just exposes the evident group favoritism practiced by the State and by the society at large. Groups are pitted and divided against each other, some groups are put above others, to strengthen the overall power of the state. The State, through this divisiveness and group favoritism, just distracts us from the real issues. It is kind of like a prison, we are all prisoners, and as of right now we are split into gangs fighting over the crumbs, when are goal should be to work together to break out of the prison.

Right, there is a double standard, but he does have the choice of who he wants to pick. He can always go for the uncle tom brown sahib type Muslims to serve in his cabinet.

 

[JCLibertarian]

I don't accept that principle, and neither should anyone else. All parents have the God given obligation to take care of their children, which, if you insist on looking at everything in terms of property rights, is another way of saying that children own property in their parents. This is true of the pre-born just as it is of the born.

I don't believe in a God, so a set of "shoulds" or "oughts", predicated on a belief in a creator that defies the laws of science and implementing that violates the self ownership principle(predicated on the natural free state of man separate from any state apparatus) violates the condition of human freedom. I don't think that a legal system based on subjective moral values should be created arbitrarily and forced onto people. And they are fetuses, not children, a fetus is just a potential child. Saying that a child owns the parent is a violation of the self ownership principle, no person has a right to the services or body of another person unless said person consents.

 

[RabbitMan]

I'd rather look at the results or how this stuff works in practice....Both the drug war and the abortion laws look like genocide or a race war when you look at its net effects.

Emphasis mine.

I'm glad you didn't explicitly mention intent, but that still doesn't help your argument. You can draw conclusions from any data when you just look at the results and make an assumption. I'd put money on that if you took these statistics and controlled for poverty, the rations between whites, blacks, and anyone else would end up being MUCH more similar than different. For instance, a 2008 study I can reference showed that women below the poverty line had a twice as high abortion rate than those of women in general. Even then, Black married women were 25% less likely to have abortions than White married women. If you looked at net effects of the American Civil War, and how many whites died because of it in comparison to minorities, it looks like the war was an attempt by Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis to destroy the white population.

I'm not trying to demean you or anything, I just don't agree with the logic being used in this thread.

Sources: http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_race.asp
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=468&cat=10

 

[JCLibertarian]

You mean judging a person by what that person believes? Of course that's ok. Why wouldn't it be?

I think prejudgement is totally natural. You can most certainly prejudge a religious philosophy, and prejudge a person who supposedly adheres to a certain phislophy. But no one can for certain know what one believes until they ask them. So denying someone a position without personally consulting them on their beliefs, or not taking into account their merits, is ridiculous in my mind. Not saying it shouldn't be allowed, I believe in free association and thereby believe individuals have the right to discriminate. I just think his attitudes reflects the hypocritical attitude of the media and political establishment, if he said this about Jews, or Christians(to a lesser extent), their would be outrage.

 

[erowe1]

I don't believe in ...a set of "shoulds" or "oughts"

From the rest of your post, obviously you do. You just don't want to face the consequences of that knowledge, such as that this set of "shoulds" and "oughts" must come from a transcendent law giver.

 

[erowe1]

But no one can for certain know what one believes until they ask them.

Obviously.

So if Herman Cain wants to hire only people who do not believe in Islam, he first has to find out if they do or not. And?

 

[JCLibertarian]

From the rest of your post, obviously you do. You just don't want to face the consequences of that knowledge, such as that this set of "shoulds" and "oughts" must come from a transcendent law giver.

You are not citing my entire quote, you are slicing a dicing it, which is dishonest. Of course I have a personal set of "shoulds" and "oughts", but they are my own, and are entirely subjective, and I wouldn't impose them on others. What I said is that your entirely subjective, and in my opinion destructive and short sighted opinion on abortion, shouldn't be issued arbitrarily into law, because it violates the principle of self ownership and restricts individual freedom. My morals don't come from a man made omniscient and all knowing deity, they come from the environment I grew up in and were formulated based on my interaction with others over time. To presume you know where my morals came from is arrogant.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think prejudgement is totally natural. You can most certainly prejudge a religious philosophy, and prejudge a person who supposedly adheres to a certain phislophy. But no one can for certain know what one believes until they ask them. So denying someone a position without personally consulting them on their beliefs, or not taking into account their merits, is ridiculous in my mind. Not saying it shouldn't be allowed, I believe in free association and thereby believe individuals have the right to discriminate. I just think his attitudes reflects the hypocritical attitude of the media and political establishment, if he said this about Jews, or Christians(to a lesser extent), their would be outrage.

Excuse me. Why are you arguing for your own brand of subjective values when, by your own admission, you think every brand has equal justification?

If you are arguing that freedom is good, but since everything is subjective, tyranny is also true and valid, I want no part of your philosophy.

 

[JCLibertarian]

Obviously.

So if Herman Cain wants to hire only people who do not believe in Islam, he first has to find out if they do or not. And?

You don't understand what I am saying. What I am saying is that one may proclaim to be a Muslim, but you might not know their personal moral beliefs until you ask them. Not everyone who is Muslim shares the same moral precepts or thinks exactly the same.

And I am not saying he has to do anything. I am just saying he is stupid for painting Muslims with a broad brush and not judging people based on merit, political philosophy, or even personal moral views

 

[JCLibertarian]

Excuse me. Why are you arguing for your own brand of subjective values when, by your own admission, you think every brand has equal justification?

If you are arguing that freedom is good, but since everything is subjective, tyranny is also true and valid, I want no part of your philosophy.

Where did I say all values sets are equal? Please cite where I said such a thing. I personally think some values sets are superior to others, but their is no universal moral code, that morality is subjective from person to person and culture to culture and that their is no universal truth, only perceptions.

I don't know what you mean by saying tyranny is true and valid. Tyranny is a real thing, that violates the condition of human freedom and the self ownership principle, which is the natural state of man.