The Glade 4.0

How so? Other than highlighting the warped ideas of one individual who died nearly half a century ago, your evidence consists of noting the disproportionate number of abortions among black people and the disproportionate amount of government funding that gets spent on it. In other words, you're pointing to a "disparate impact" as evidence of intent.

Honestly, racism, homophobia, and other such things have become incredibly difficult to define and most people just do it on feeling. For example, almost no one considers it homophobic for the Red Cross to not accept blood donations from homosexuals due to the higher than average incidence of transmissible disease amongst them, but if an employer doesn't want to hire a minority because that minority has a much higher crime rate than average, it's considered incredibly racist by most. The logic in both scenarios is almost identical, but that's irrelevant.

My evidence also includes our government adding additional funding for economic stimulus, which stands as a bright line in my argument.

Additionally, "disparate impact" has little to do with funding where the effect is several layers removed from the intent. However in my example the effect is the exact intent. Funding abortions, and current abortion law, has the sole intent of eliminating unwanted births.

Funny how you find the ideas of Sanger to be warped, but the actual practice of her ideas acceptable.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

"Discouraging reproduction." Interesting choice of words.
Aborting already created lives is not the most efficient means of discouraging reproduction but neither are things like condoms or birth control pills due to high margins of user error.
The next logical step would be sterilization, which if it ever became involuntary, would put us one short step away from the beliefs and actions of you-know-who.
If you were to follow the notion that abortion clinics are out to eliminate minorities as a conscious and deliberate process, then by the same token we must racially villify malt liquor (there are documentaries on this showing it was created and marketed specifically for blacks), the manufacturers of Newports and Black N Milds, the people who put liquor stores in the ghetto and the people who sell guns in black neighborhoods.

Perhaps it's not all some grand scheme to eliminate minorities in a genocidal fashion...but to keep them opressed? Quite possibly.

The question is, if all these things are not in place for the purpose of genocide or oppression, what should we be seeing instead?

You haven't demonstrated this, in any way. You're assuming your unbacked assertion is true, and using that to dismiss the comparison that RD is making. If your assumption is invalid, then RD's comparison holds.



False premise. I doubt seriously he'd agree with your assumption that her ideas are in practice. It's also a bit of a strawman, since I don't see where he labeled anything as "acceptable".

Agree that abortion is not a particularly efficient means of birth control.
(Condoms and pills are advisable, but not perfect. Note the least reliable means is abstinence from sex, since it has the highest margins of "user error.")
Abortion is an efficient way of rectifying such an error.

As for "already created lives," well, I'll leave the metaphysics for the philosophers and stick with the physical.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This (both points).

To the first point:

There are only two types of pregnacies. Wanted, and unwanted. Unwanted, for these purposes should be construed as "less wanted than the concequences of going through with the pregnancy". I Don't think it is possible for this to be in dispute. If one wanted the pregnacy more than one didn't want the concequences of the pregnancy, they wouldn't terminate it.

To the second point:

Sanger sought positive eugenics, used disproportionatly against those groups of society she found to be lacking. That is exactly what Planned Parenthood does.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I knew you were going to say that. Your response is irrelevent, as it does not indicate an intent for that "disparate impact". Please note your previous quote:



You have not illustrated, in any way, that the intent is a "disparate impact".



So you say, but you have not illustrated this. Again, you need to demonstrate that Planned Parenthood practices eugenics, you can't just state that they do.

This is the Mission Statement from Planned Parenthood:



Bolded is mine. It appears that, on paper, they claim to not be seeking a disparate impact. They are equal-opportunity baby killers. It really is up to you to demonstrate this intent you discuss.

(other than RD) I do not think this term means what any one in this thread thinks it means.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ate+Impact

_________________

Oh, ****. I had no idea this was a legal term.

Ah, sorry guys. I figured we'd talked about discrimination issues enough that people would recognize the term. Didn't mean to drop in a term of art folks weren't familiar with. My point was that Rynar is basically arguing in favor of a very broad interpretation of the "disparate impact" theory here - i.e. that even if a policy seems racially neutral on the surface, disproportionate impacts are strong evidence of discriminatory intent. In court cases on the issue, libertarians and conservatives have generally argued against such a broad interpretation, so it seemed inconsistent with Rynar's general worldview.

Indeed. That disparate impact has been what most of the Glade has argued against when practically anything else is called "racist", so I don't see that it applies to abortion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Disparate impact applies only when the statistical breakdown isn't the intent. If cities were, for instance, structuring their exams with the intent of preventing minority hiring.

This isn't the case when it comes to abortion law, federal funding, and Planned Parenthood. A disproportionate number of clinics are located in urban areas, and black neighborhoods. The federally funded counseling provided suggests abortions as a preferred alternative to taking the pregnancy to term.

The funds were even provided as an economic stimulus...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I haven't seen on iota of evidence that there's any intent. Your "disproportionate number of clinics" can be just as easily attributed to the fact that the poor are more likely to engage in risky sexual practices and less likely to employ birth control, leading to more pregnancies. The poor, especially the minority poor, are more concentrated in urban areas, requiring a greater density of clinics.

Seriously, do you really think rural areas should have the same concentration of clinics as urban? That's silly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

I'm not a big fan of Planned Parenthood; I'm definitely not a fan of Margaret Sanger. I'm just going to make that clear up front.

I'd previously stated that the demographic data for abortions was disturbing. Non-Hispanic Blacks are 12.4% of the total population. Total Hispanic population is 16%. Yes, legal, census counted Hispanics are now the largest Minority in the United States. Be that as it may, 28.4% (because we're just going to be simple with it and assume a 50/50 split on male female) of the total female population accounts for a plurality (55%) of abortions performed in this country.

If it were anything else, if it were any other topic, RangerDave would be screaming about a disparate impact in the legal sense. If it were any other topic, even the libertarians would be perplexed by the staggering disparity in abortion proceedings between non-Hispanic Whites (69.5% of the female population) and the two largest minority groups. Honestly, all I can say is that it's disturbing ...

Although, I can add that educated, non-Hispanic white women don't produce enough children to maintain their population base.

_________________

How about abortions compared to pregnancy rates Khross?

Actually, I disagree rather strongly with the disparate impact approach to Equal Protection law. Sure, it can serve as evidence of intentional discrimination, but absent substantial other supporting evidence, it's pretty unpersuasive. In a personal judgment sense, I may or may not find it persuasive depending on the circumstances, but the more extraordinary the claim, the less likely I am to find it plausible. Intentional, government-sponsored genocide hiding in plain sight? Not so much.

I said nothing of the sort on that front ...

What I did say, however, is that the staggering difference in representation is disturbing, especially given that abortion is split almost 50/50 on the poverty line. Still, abortion as a general rule declined during the Bush Administration (a decline which has continued under Obama's Administration) from it's peak in the mid 90s. I view this as a generally positive thing. I am, however, perplexed by the shift in abortion demographics.

_________________

Ah.. ok. I am a nerd on this shizz because I went to school for it. So let's set some legal terms here.

Disparate Impact is a process/procedure/policy you implement that is on it's face neutral but turns out to have unintended adverse impacts on protected classes.

Disparate Treatment is a process/procedure/policy you implement that is on it's face discriminatory (or it is neutral and the protected class can prove that actually KNEW it would have disparate impact).

In other words impact = unintentional; treatment = intentional. Both are "unacceptable" in the work environment but one entitles you to punitive damages, the other does not.

_________________

It's been almost five years since I studied that stuff, so I may be misremembering, but I believe that's the statutory distinction in Federal employment law, and there's also a line of cases dealing with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution in which the distinction isn't quite so bright-line. As I recall, the Supreme Court basically shot down the argument that disparate impact was, on its own, an Equal Protection violation, but allowed the possibility that it could serve as evidence of discriminatory intent which would violate the EP clause. That said, I think the Court expressed a great deal of skepticism on that point as well, noting that significant additional evidence would be required for a finding of discriminatory intent.

I'm thinking of this case in particular: Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. My view is largely in line with the Court's holding - i.e. that it's only an EP violation if there's discriminatory intent, and that disparate impact has some evidentiary value, it's usually not very persuasive unless there's a larger pattern of evidence.