Just watched the documentary, "Freakonomics" and it was pretty interesting.
One segment showed that a huge drop in crime in the 90's was nearly 50% attributable to Roe v Wade...basically saying that by the time lower economic kids would have reached the age of committing major crimes, it didn't happen because these kids were aborted.
They gave quite a few examples and statistics from other states and time periods to back it up...profound, to say the least.

What? The welfare state perpetuates itself by preemptively killing the demographic that it benefits the most?

We're talking about a demographic that isn't responsible enough to use proper birth control measures. That the crime rate would have dropped significantly a generation after abortion bands were found to be unconstitutional is no big shock. I suppose we could ban abortion and force all of the wholesome, morally upstanding rightists to adopt all of the resulting babies, but somehow I don't see that happening. We'd have a huge firestorm about the government taking away people's rights to choose who they accept into their families.

Great post, LK. This has long been one of my biggest gripes with the leftist welfare state. It passively promotes a silent genocide in order to perpetuate itself, incentivizing a prenatal slaughter of groups which draw heavily on the resources of the state, reducing costs. The eugenics of Margaret Sanger put to practice.

Khross, that's disingenuous. Is there ANY evidence that such populations are decreasing in size?

Beyond that, this is an unintended consequence not a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing. This is not giving a people smallpox infected blankets, or even providing alcohol to a population with no prior access to it for the specific purpose of pacifying a population.

The fact of the matter is the demographics most likely to get abortions are also the populations most likely to have difficulty supporting such children.

Anyone have the statistics on birth control in similar situations?

We're talking about a demographic that isn't responsible enough to use proper birth control measures. That the crime rate would have dropped significantly a generation after abortion bands were found to be unconstitutional is no big shock. I suppose we could ban abortion and force all of the wholesome, morally upstanding rightists to adopt all of the resulting babies, but somehow I don't see that happening. We'd have a huge firestorm about the government taking away people's rights to choose who they accept into their families.

It's not genocide when they have a net population increase.

You are using a very bad definition.

Ok. Then perhaps it is an extremely insignificant genocide since the population of any ethnic group you're talking about is increasing.

Kevin McGary, author of “Instanity!, “Abortion has everything to do with human right, it has everything to do with civil rights, it has everything to do with social justice. If you’re sincere about racism, this is the pivotal issue.” McGary estimated that 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are placed in African American neighborhoods. “Forty percent of all abortions are being performed on African American children,” he said. Noting African Americans make up 12 percent of the population, and estimating that women of childbearing age make up 3 percent of the population, “23 million people have been denied life,” he said. “How can we have principled people that ignore this issue?” he asked, noting that the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus and council of black churches remain silent on the issue of abortion. ( The Catholic Voice: Oakland right to life rally calls attention to ‘black genocide’)

2011- Rev.-Dr. Christopher A. Bullock, pastor/founder

And yet the population of black people is increasing. You like to exagerrate terms, that's totally fine, but I just disagree that it is "genocide" in the same way the Armenian, Jewish, or Rwanda ones were. In those cases the net population decreased. I won't debate semantics anymore.

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Good, you win, it's genocide. Just like my boss is going to "murder" me tomorrow if I don't update some stuff.

Rynar, but you missed the one thing from your definition. The word "INTENT" --this is a consequence, not an intentional act

Even if we grant that Sanger was a racist, it hardly follows that the practice of abortion is racist. The death penalty is not inherently racist either, though the demographics certainly indicate it is applied with far greater frequency against minorities. (I have my own issues with the death penalty, may be racist)