Hardly- her stated goal was the reduction of the black population. Don't fool yourself- that woman was no patron saint of "choice"

I would guess it is because it is something he has been in on before. From the article:

"Mr. Bennett, who was the secretary of education in the Reagan administration and is the author of a best-selling book on morality, said he was referring to a debate in the online magazine Slate that had discussed race in the context of an argument about whether abortions contributed to lowering the crime rate. That debate, involving Steven D. Levitt, an author of the best-seller "Freakonomics," apparently appeared in Slate six years ago."

Honestly, I've never seen that goal stated, so I'll not argue that point. I have seen her letters wherein she stated her frustration with the Comstock Laws of the time. She was a LOT more about birth control than abortion, from what I've read. Yes I know she joined a eugenics movement, but I'd read she quit, disgusted, because she'd thought it would help her, but was it obviously was something QUITE different from what she expected. I'll have to go rooting through some books to find more info...

I understand what he meant, but I also have a problem with what he said because it plays into racial perceptions in a way that I think someone of his political stature should try to avoid.

His statement would be true even if it were altered to hypothesize aborting all white babies. Crime rates would then presumeably drop by whatever percentage is committed by white people. Chosing "black people" as the group capitalizes on both the reality of higher crime stats and the public stereotypes of criminal identity. I can't help but think that part of his argument stands on the idea that white criminals are so few that the idea is ludicrous on its face, but black criminals are so numerous that it would actually be a solution to crime. A reprehensible solution, but effective. In contrast, a more racially neutral expression of the same argument would be to argue that mandatory abortions across the board would reduce juvenile crime and then continue with thoughts on abortion itself.

I suspect that this was an off-the-cuff remark and that he didn't really put that much though into it. Those of us that now have the luxury to examine this post-mortem, as it were, can take away the lesson that one should really watch what one says in interviews.

I'm not buying the context argument. If that was the example he chose to illustrate his point, it illustrates his racism quite a bit better.

I don't care about context or no context. Nor do I care who else may have some something that may or may not have been similar. Bottom line is that this is a racist comment and the guy should be pubically ridiculed and rotton tomatoes stuffed into every orifice.

It is just not right to say that....at all!

Ya know- I like you two- but those comments seem to be full of intellectual laziness and nothing but the need to feel good about being outraged about something someone you don't like said-

Feeling rather than thinking about it-and I truly do not mean offense, but that is how that strikes me.

The first part of your statement - I don't want to have to agree with it. It is the ignorance of those listening to what he said that is the problem, not what he said.

Statistically and mathematically, the second part of your quote above is not true. If you have a section of the populace committing crimes at a higher rate than the other, taking them out of the equation lowers crimes rates overall. If you remove the section of the populace committing crimes at a lower rate than the other, the crime rate raises overall.

I couuld come up with an example with numbers, but that would bore everyone.

Is Howard Dean then a racist in your eyes because of his comment on how Republicans could only fill up a room at a convention by bringing in all of the hotel staff? That has no context at all.

Please explain to me why.