Firstly: Kriswest, in the USA
Whites = 72% (of total population)
Blacks = 13% (of total population)
% of abortions by whites = 52% (of total abortions)
% of abortions by blacks = 41% (of total abortions)
This is statistically important to consider.
Secondly: Well stated James
The statistics tell me that females are deciding to not be mother or be pregnant. I note your statistics leaves out ages, regions, urban, suburban, education levels, religions and political affiliation, etc… Your statistics is the same as taking one chapter out of a book and declaring it the whole story.
Sure. 
At first I had wondered if it was true that white women were disgenic and anti-family.
Not 100% of them, but even 10% is well over millions of women.
They were selected and bred for looks, not for intelligence or for strength.
Note that I did not just give abortion statistics, I gave them relative to population statistics for all of the USA. These are damning statistics irrespective of age, regions, education, religion, political… as it encompasses all of these.
We could say, the lower the education the higher the abortion rate… and blacks are more uneducated. This does not alter the fact that “overall” abortion rates are related to skin color. In fact, this makes the situation even worse.
There is substance within the OP that needs to be examined and not simply dismissed. I am not saying that the OP is true but instead I am saying it needs to be examined within a critical framework. Dismissing statistical realities does not fit within a critical framework. At the moment you hold on to a strong opinion that cannot be validated.
Edit: “In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women”
Abortion is a matter of education and poverty.
I imagine if you were to examine populations outside the US, you would find education and poverty would show a greater co-relation.
Because the US has a significant race prejudice and bias, the numbers look like a race issue.
For example…
heraldscotland.com/news/home … d.19138671
Scotland is not so racially diverse, yet has a high rate of abortion in teens.
When the figures are not completely obsessed by and buried by race, the obvious and widespread correlation are more obvious.
Please SeePage 9.
50 out of 1000 oh my, 950 women kept their babies, 50 did not. 950,50… hmmm. If I was going to cull a herd that 50 is not worth doing.
You are very wrong about ethnicity being that important, all must be looked at in order to gather a true picture. Your argument is blinded by a fervent belief. Statistics are notoriously biased and only part of the overall. Preachers, politicians, leaders pound on their favored statistics, they never say crap about anything that might detract from their goal.
Rates are causally related to poverty and education, not colour.
Because there is a Correlation between colour and poverty and education, this is why you THINK it is something to do with colour.
See previous post.
True.
~There is a far more obvious problem with what is implied here.
The fact is that no one is forced to have an abortion, so the idea that the government is somehow conspiring to kill off black is absurd.
For sure there are structural problems which ensure that black people tend to continue to be poor and poorly educated, but that is a different question.
Kriswest, you clearly did not read my post.
Lev, you clearly did not read my post.
Clearly I did. You have an agenda and refuse to see any other possible. Why not look at why the babies were not aborted, since they vastly outnumber the aborted. Why not take a look at that side of your statistics. It does show that women want their progeny and as far as I know there is no program forcing women to choose sexual partners… oh wait, Hollywood does that doesn’t it…
Kriswest, you clearly did not read my post. You are reacting to what is in your own head.
Perpetualburn wrote:
To become a man means to go on your own, in other words, take some responsibility in controlling your own life.
Wear a condom.
Soooo … emmm … what does becoming a “woman” mean? 
Again, I have read your post/s. To keep saying I have not read your post/s does not refute what I say. It does say that you can not give a reply.
Child support law exists for the child’s sake, not for the mother’s sake.
Is that why there’s almost zero accountability for how a recipient of child support spends her(in most cases) money? And how do they determine who is the better parent in a custody battle again? Do you think child support laws are “fair”? Why is it so much easier for a woman to milk the system?
And regarding my first question. I believe if a woman wants to give up her child for adoption the father has to be on board or else he would become the guardian… She just can’t give up the child without his consent. And if they both want to give up their child for adoption they’re both giving up their parental rights.
In the US. A father named is not required. Genetic testing of paternity is not required. Father’s rights are not recognized unless his name is on the certificate and signed or testing proves positive.
Back in 78 my Dad received full custody of us. Mom took all the money and Dad took us. My Dad wanted it that way and I am glad.
Another thoughtless, all claims no arguments thread by LaughingMan.
Allowing women the choice of aborting their babies is government controlling female reproduction? As opposed to what, not allowing women to have the choice of abortion which is government totally not controlling female reproduction?
How are you going to ban women from aborting their babies? Through government controlling female reproduction.
Pro-choice - you are FREE to CHOOSE whether you will abort or give birth, both should be permissible by government (in other words, government isn’t controlling anything, individual women are)
Pro-life - you AREN’T FREE to choose, abortion should be banned by the government (in other words, government controls female reproduction to some extent)