Not so. Black women are 13% of the (female) population but account for 36.5% of the abortions.
That still doesn’t mean what Cain says it does, since the pregnancy rate among black women is correspondingly elevated.
Illegitimate babies born to poor, black, single, inner-city women in South are "endangered species"?
IIRC Madeline Gray’s biography of Margaret Sanger quotes her on a couple occasions describing abortion as “killing” and comparing it to infanticide, which sounds kind of pro-lifey to me.
As for what Cain said, at least it’s a change from Republicans complaining about single black women having too many babies (for the welfare check, of course). Or forcibly sterilizing them.
Which brings us right back to my original question:
Cain has hitched his wagon to this campaign to increase the number of poor black babies (who will need WIC, welfare, Section 8, etc etc). If, as you state, Republicans in general think poor blacks are having too many babies as it is, then again, WHO does Cain think is his voter base? Not Republicans, by this reasoning.
So why is he running as a Republican??
Because American politics is locked in this funky system of only 2 significant parties. Either you are a Liberal, which means you must be for gay marriage, abortion, big government, large social programs, women’s rights, separation of church and state, etc, or you are a Conservative and you must be for “preservation of marriage” (i.e. anti-gay rights), 100% pro-life (no exceptions), small government, no social programs, women stop whining, Christian church or you’re not American, etc. Try to be anything else, and you’re forced to either (a) pick the party above that is closest to your feelings and then grumble about the things they do you dislike, (b) pick a “third party” that doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting any real traction, or (c) protest by not voting.
Cain is a social and fiscal conservative, so he picks the party that is closest to his ideal - the Republicans. The fact that he also is Black and has racial concerns is his “grumble about the things they do you dislike”.
But Republicans don’t reason. They’re alternately against the scourge of poor black babies or they’re against abortion scourging poor black babies depending if it’s an even or odd day of the week.
But minority includes blacks, does not equal it. A clinic in Calle Ocho will have lots of minority patients, relatively few blacks, and those blacks may be tossing a coin to decide whether they want to count as “black” or as “hispanic”.
Topic: Illegitimate babies born to poor, black, single, inner-city women in South are “endangered species”?
It interests me that these babies were not born to fathers. No mention has been made of their equal responsibility.
Irishman, the Liberals that I know are not pro abortion. They are pro choice. There is an important difference and to ignore it is unfair to those who are pro choice and pro life.
Can’t they be both? In the US “Hispanic” is officially deemed an ethnic group rather than a race, so there are Black Hispanics and White Hispanics.
Some questionaries don’t accept the double answer, and sometimes you get better fellowships or otherwise access to better services by claming one than by claiming the other. The questionaries I’ve personally been given always had those items under the same heading, and not all of them accepted “other” or multiple choices. I’ve even seen one which had the choices of “White (Hispanic); White (not Hispanic); African-American…” My extremely-black Dominican coworkers weren’t happy about that one, as you can imagine.
The correct terms are “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion.” Pro-life don’t mean shit.
That’s because fathers aren’t pregnant. I think you missed the qualifiers of “illegitimate” and “single”. Do the fathers have equal responsibility? Sure. In practice, is that carried out? Often not. The title addresses the reality, not the ideal.
I’m well aware of the difference between pro choice and pro abortion. I notice you didn’t say anything about my equally distorted presentations of the conservative position.
“Pro-life” means exactly what they want it to mean, which is to shift the context of the conversation from “I’m against you having a freedom” to “I’m for protecting innocent life”. The analogy would be being pro-choice on spousal abuse - “Hey, I’m not for spousal abuse, but I think it’s a matter to be decided between the couple and not determined by government”.
No, that’s poisoning the well.
Regards,
Shodan