ABC News reports "Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime" and the Washington Post tells us
"Bennett Links Aborting Black Babies and a Crime-Rate Drop."

In addition, the White House deemed Bennett's remarks "not appropriate".

Remarkably, Bennett supports neither abortion nor a eugenics program aimed at the black population.

During his program Bennett opposed a pragmatic caller who basically said abortion is bad because it has killed 46 million potential taxpayers. He countered the caller's argument by first asserting that abortion is murder because it is immoral and then by equating his opponent's statement with a completely absurd proposition.

BENNETT: All right. Well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book, Freakanomics, is that they make is that the declining crime rate -- you know, they deal with this hypothesis that one of the reasons that crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think so it is either.

CALLER: Yeah.

BENNETT: I don't think it is either because, first of all, I think there's just too much that you don't know. But 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.

In making this ludicrous statement, he used his opponents presupposition that the end justifies the means (i.e., do not abort and you'll have more tax payers) and then developed an outrageous argument (reduce crime through abortion) which he expected all would completely reject.

Yes, Bennett assumed listeners would be rational and thus reject pragmatism as a valid argument against abortion. He was also unwise to use something

The problem with the Bennett's critics is that they are purposefully distorting his argument to accomplish the "greater" purpose of attacking conservatives in general. They are fully aware that Bennett does not believe in abortion or targeting a particular community to reduce crime. He even stated that his hypothical scenario "would an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." Here's the transcript:

BENNETT: That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Well, this --

BENNETT: So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky

"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition ... and then said about it, it was morally reprehensible to recommend abortion of an entire group of people," Bennett stated today.

Yet, critics have chosen to distort and misrepresent his statements in an effort to deceive the public into supporting the own agenda ... pathetic!

Interestingly, it was the (liberal) founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who truly did believe in targeting the underprivileged by race to reduce poverty and crime. She wrote, "The maternity facilities for slum mothers are injurious to the community and the race. Charity will only prolong the misery of the unfit."

In the Birth Control Review, Sanger stated, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit ' that is the chief aim of birth control".

In 1939 she and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called "Birth Control and the Negro," which asserted that "the poorer areas, particularly in the South ... are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations." Her "religion of birth control" would, she wrote, "ease the financial load of caring for with public funds ... children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation."

Yet, Sanger has been lauded as a great hero by the same group who now fake indignation over Bennett's argument to the absurd. The reaction to Bennett's statements is hypocritical propaganda and vilification at its worst.