Jeff L. Thigpen Register of Deeds

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Bill Bennett's Comments "Put in Context"

When I first heard about Bill Bennett's comments on Friday I was really disappointed. I have issues with Bill Bennett's politics on some things but there are worse Republicans in this world. The quote that had, "if you wanted to reduce the crime rate you could just abort every black child, etc., etc., got everyone upset including me.

I went to Bennett's website, heard the caller's question and the conversation. While I still think he should not have made the comparison, he immediately stated that it would be "a morally reprehensible thing to do" and after listening to the audio, I think the caller the boneheaded one for comparing revenue losses from the aborted fetus.


  • It doesn't matter that he said that it is morally reprehensible. He made the statement that if you wanted to reduce the crime rate you could just abort every black child... So, he back pedals and says it's morally represensible, and it's okay? Nope! He thinks all abortion is morally represensible. There's no justification there. He was wrong to have said it. Period!

    By Blogger jw, at 2:06 PM  

  • There is nothing inherently immoral in any statement or articulation of sentiment when the statement is in fact hypothetical. That said, Bennett's explanation that it was hypothetical is rather tenuous from a linguistic standpoint, regardless of what he says his intentions were.

    The quote is thus:

    "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

    The "I do know that it's true" is questionable. The key element is "if." However, one could also SAY that "if all the starving people in the world were killed, there would be no more hunger problems, because presumably the exact same conditions that existed before among those who had food would remain after killing the starving." Is this an endorsement of genocide to wipe out world hunger? No, it's a hypothetical statement taken to the most "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" end.

    Seems like everyone is outraged for the sake of being outraged.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home