Wow, that's a complete failure of an argument. Seriously, it's embarrassing.
The reason Planned Parenthood has clinics in poor neighborhoods is because rich people can find doctors to perform any service they need, and the middle class can also do this when determined to do so, but poor people have fewer options available for medical care. No one is forcing poor women into abortions, these women choose abortions to better focus their more limited resources on the children they have, or plan to have later. That will lead to a more successful, integrated black population.
As for "small people", I hold more regard for an embryo than I do for a sperm, but both are small human beings. At least the Catholics are consistent in their "every sperm and egg are sacred" doctrine.
Well, of course I don't expect you to just roll over and say "Yah got me." And I do realize that a lot of people aren't going to find this particular line of thinking persuasive, especially at first glance.
Locating what I euphemistically call "Panned Parenthood" clinics in poor, often black, neighborhoods could be the result of the simple math you describe. . . . put them where the poor people are to "help" them. A lot of folks will be outraged at my continuation of the last sentence. . . . . . "Put them where the poor people are, to help them kill themselves off." But I think there are people who do think just the way I'm telling it. I'll compile a list, with quotes, if you like. . . . .
David Rockefeller will be on that list, for sure. You know, the old white man who sits near the top of the list of politically-important and influential elites. . . . .He is proud of his work with the Council of Foreign Relations and the United Nations. Cecil Rhodes will be on that list, perhaps a founder of the "Progressive" movement that has prevailed in the twentieth Century, until today.
But for my point here, at this particular moment, I would just postulate the ideal that "equality of opportunity" is something we as a species would benefit from for ages to come, if we don't kill our embryonic young even if it creates a sort of survival gradient that tests the basic genetic hardiness of our species. In that scenario, our efforts to enhance the survival of individuals with specific problems might be considered "unwise" in the long term.
You mention a concept which I do not absolutely deny. . . . that poor women with limited resources might be able to focus their effort on the children they have if given "help" in limiting the number. Poverty is in itself a "selector" factor in survival that is genetically "neutral". A lot of kids don't survive because of severe inequities in access to resources for their care. . . . . whether or not their inherent genetics is sound. . . . .
You might argue me into a corner on this one, and turn me into a socialist, if I'm not a kind of socialist already. If we wish to improve our "genetic stock", I'd probably go for a line of action that might include helping the poor people survive, and I'd likely go for a line of action that doesn't place emphasis on "looks", including "color". My criticism of "Panned Parenthood" is exactly that. . .. Fail squared.
