That is actually a pretty large gap - one third of all abortion seekers are black women, even though they’re only 10% of the (eligible) population.
Of course, absent some evidence that they aren’t voluntarily terminating their pregnancies, it’s still not genocide.
Don’t be so silly. That would never work.
Thank you.
How about a “solitaire-genocide” or “individual-genocide”.
But only 5% of black women had abortions in 2004, compared to 1% of white women. I’m saying we clearly need to be seeing some higher percentages if we’re going to be talking some real genocide.
I guess the better-off women are committing genocide via contraception, going by Joe’s conclusion. By that definition, I’ve been “genociding” daily for two decades now! Man, am I evil or what?
How about picking another word rather than twisting one into meaning something it’s not suited for?
We could call them “Wordonomicons!”
They call that a homicide. Since the fetuses aren’t people, it’s not homicide. Call it foeticide, if you like.
Again, regardless of percentages, it’s not genocide because it’s voluntary. I was simply pointing out that there is a sizeable disparity in abortion numbers by race.
I don’t understand why abortion could be genocide. I’ve read all of your posts, SSSN, and I can’t understand why being poor and not having a baby equals genocide. At all.
What if you’re not poor and have an abortion merely because you don’t want to have a baby?
Even if a women just wants to get rid of a baby just to get rid of it.
She is getting rid of her existence to pass on her genes. That is like Nazis getting getting rid of all the Jews, Christians, mentally-ill people, gay people, and trans-gender people to clean society of them.
That is all genocide.
‘A genocide of one’ isn’t an especially convincing theory.
Obtaining an abortion due to economic reasoning isn’t a political statement, but I am almost interested in the tortured logic it would take to see it as such. Can you map it for me?
How about intentionally not reproducing? Or only having one child, regardless of how many children one could potentially bear?
Unless each woman is aborting 500 babies (all fathered by men of the same race), no, it isn’t.
Well, apparently the one written by Mr. Webster isn’t meeting its objective in this case.
Not even close. You said it yourself - she’s not terminating the pregnancy out of a desire to keep from passing on her genes, she’s terminating the pregnancy because she doesn’t want to continue this pregnancy. She may already have children, or she may plan to have children in the future.
How do you feel about people who have themselves surgically sterilized? Have they committed genocide because they won’t be passing on their genes?
A false assertion (“abortion, even one abortion, is genocide”) doesn’t become true just because you keep repeating it.
I see what you are getting at. Like they do in China.
Hey, if the human species wants to over populate the world with people. Why should it be stopped?
The cycle of life is also destroying it too.
No. She is at most delaying the decision to pass on her genes. In addition, if her siblings reproduce, the same genes will be passed on, not wiped from the Earth. Can we please not go down the Nazi path? I know it’s tempting but let us try to [del]stay[/del] get as close to logic as possible.
Fetuses do not represent an entire ideological/religious/political population of people. It isn’t as if the Sudanese fetuses suddenly decided the Masalit fetuses were a useless bunch and needed to go, then formed a junta and set about medical clinics aborting them.
“Stopped” in the sense that some external force will stop it or “stopped” in the sense that a lot of humans who are currently alive get together in some forum and decide that we should procreate less in the interests of…
Hey, if the moon were made of spareribs would you eat it?
Aren’t spareribs a form of genocide, though?
Genocide goes way too far - but eugenics doesn’t, especially when we talk about the abortion of the mentally retarded. Even a lot of otherwise pro-choice people seem troubled over this - Ted Kennedy, reflecting his family’s longstanding support for the retarded, introduced legislation a few years ago mandating counseling for women seeking termination of a pregnancy because of Down syndrome.
It didn’t pass, but surely indicates where his feelings are on this subject.
OK, so in your world, one woman deciding on her own that she doesn’t want to have a fifth baby is on par with a massive national program to involuntarily exterminate all seizable members of a particular ethnic/social group.
:rolleyes:
You seem to have a bone to pick with abortion alone, and quite oddly, it appears to stem from an opposition to population control, rather than the usual objection to the murder of unborn human beings. So I’ll ask my question again:
**How is controlling one’s fertility via abortion any more genocidal than controlling one’s fertility via contraception? Or abstinence?
Or compulsive masturbation?
Or homosexual intercourse?**
Or any other sort of activity that deliberately seeks to avoid producing a baby?