You've evidently never heard women talk about sex.
On the contrary, you've never been around
enough women, of various stripes.
Why is it exclusively women's fault?
Stop grasping at straws. You know that's not what I said, though
you certainly tried to make this 100% the fault of men.
I don't see you people saying guys need to have less sex.
If-- unlike you-- I say that both men and women are autonomous agents capable of accountability, that should get the point across.
Minorities (especially blacks and Hispanics) are disproportionately poor in America, hence the higher reported abortion rate.
Hispanics have
never aborted at a rate comparable to that of black people.
It is to my disappointment that American conservatives focus on "black genocide" rather than raising their standards of living.
You're overinflating the focus given to the concept of "black genocide". Most of the time, it's black people who talk about it, and it's not even a common political conversation topic.
"Raising their standards of living" starts by fixing the soul of the community (not merely by
lining the pockets of casually corrupt city councils throwing money at them for program funding), which frankly isn't a job that politicians can do more than assist with by opening up the country's wallet at specific and appropriate junctions.
And before you blame that on the "welfare state" (Segregation was actually really good - "Uncle" Thomas Sowell)
Have you
read Sowell? The relevant contention isn't that "segregation was good", it's that "
forced integration had deleterious consequences and wiped out white and black accomplishment alike". I trust you can understand the difference between the abolition of segregation and the forcing of integration.
That aside, he lays a lot on the expanded welfare state, but you're talking as if he makes it some black box that spits out poor black people instead of-- for example-- talking about how welfare as it is replaces reciprocal obligation to a family and community with unilateral and borderline unconditional subsidy that encourages no positive trait development/maintenance or family/community cohesion.
His central contention (as far as I can tell) is that America as a whole is suffering from a "social vision" foisted upon it by powerful people with immense tunnel vision. The party affiliation of the actors in that isn't something of much focus, compared to what they did.
The problem I'm having with you now is that you're saying a bunch of "X does Y" and it's apparent that they're pre-rehearsed lines you're likely not prepared to back up-- or, in some cases, explain their relevance.
"Blacks and Latinos are poor so they abort more!" But poor people still have kids. Not only that, but the recorded poverty rates of blacks and Hispanics are much more similar, practically neck-and-neck:
but black people are estimated to abort notably more. These graphs suffer from the fact that they flatten numerous municipal and state contexts into several ethnicity-qualified estimates (well, that, and the first graph lumps together everyone that isn't Hispanic or black/white non-Hispanic), but those disparities are at least enough to establish that this phenomenon isn't solely caused by poverty-- if that's even a major cause.
"But Bush!" Nobody was talking about Bush, or political parties, or whatever else you're trying to talk about. Hell,
you hardly talked about Bush and how he did what you claimed he did. Sometimes good things are done for a community, and sometimes bad things are done to one. In the grand scheme, the only thing that's relevant is the motivations and vision of the benefactor or malefactor. I have no idea why you felt the need to mention that Bush screwed over the blacks in a preemptive response to a railing about the welfare state that hadn't even been brought up at this point because we were talking about how Planned Parenthood has and continues to target the black community.
, I know, but a man can hope.