Abortions by race - racism, or affirmative action?

A mysterious organization wants to give $50 million to Planned Parenthood (which represents America's largest abortion provider), but with one provision: The money can only be used to provide free abortions to African American women.

This is a question for the Left: Is this racism (against Blacks), or affirmative action?

 

Might need to have some (any) information about the organization to even start making a guess at their intentions.

 

Does whether something is "good" or "bad" depend on intentions ? (That does seem to describe how progressives think)

It's a mysterious organization. You don't know anything about them. Do you approve of this?

 

Yeah, absolutely it does.

If an organization’s stated stance on abortion is that it’s healthcare, and they want to make this form of healthcare more available to women of color, then I’d say the donation is a net positive.

If an organization’s stated stance on abortion is that it’s murder, and they want to aid black people in a self genocide, then I’d say the donation is far less positive. (Although, some people may argue a good outcome is still good, even if intentions were bad.)

 

You can't be serious. So it's a good thing if the intention behind it was good??

If all government policies were good if they were passed with good intentions, we'd all be living in a utopia.

This just seems so typical of how many on the Left think.

(Though I don't want to automatically write you off as one of those people)

It very much seems to me that whether something is a net positive or not in society has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING really to do with whether the intentions behind it were good.

I would have thought that would be obvious and totally self-evident.

 

While I am on the left, I would appreciate you not writing me offer before hearing out my argument.

Intention in itself doesn’t determine whether or not an action or its results can be considered good. Ultimately it’s going to be a combination of these things with some factors weighing more heavily than others based on different variables.

The best of intentions, whatever they may be, don’t outweigh accidentally doing a holocaust for instance.

Let me posit a hypothetical. Let’s say I go out one day and decide to punch a random person in the face. That would be wrong, right? I believe so, as my intent was to do harm. Now, let’s say that the person I punched was, unbeknownst to me, a serial rapist. Even if we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that me punching him stopped him from doing a rape later that night, it would not make my action justifiable. I should be punished for the crime I committed. Do you agree?

 

But you didn't ask whether it would be good or bad, you asked whether it would be racism or affirmative action. They're both describe intentions, not outcomes.

 

Why does that matter? They obviously want more black people to die.

 

Do you really think an organization with good intents would keep themselves hidden?

 

You’ve already quoted my answer to this question.

 

Not sure. Just exploring the topic. Nothing wrong with that, right?

 

it's racist, they do not want to help poor white women in need

 

I’d be interested in your thought process. As I’ve already mentioned, I don’t believe we have enough information to make a definitive judgement.

 

be no different from someone donating 50 million and saying it can only be used to help white women

 

But would that be racist against white women, as the OP suggested it might be racist against black people?

 

it would be racist as the help is based on race

but if a black person donated trying to reduce the size of the white population or visa versa, then it would be even more a case of racism, due to the intent

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

I see, so you believe racism is an intention, not an outcome.

It would follow to reason therefore that it could not necessarily be good or bad.

 

No, "racism" is a word and, like most words, can have different meanings in different contexts. In the context you used it in the OP, it described an intention though.

Not at all. Intentions can certainly be subjectively (or even objectively) good or bad, regardless of whether they're successfully followed through. If someone intended to murder an innocent victim but failed to do so, be that by their own incompetence, luck or the deliberate actions of someone else stopping them, we'd still recognise their intention as bad (and indeed, they could face criminal charges for attempted murder).

 

Neither, it's more like a preventative form of welfare. If somebody lacks the means to get an abortion, they will have trouble affording a child, but without the abortion the child will happen. Making abortion easier for them to access will help keep them out of poverty, and prevent the rest of us from having to finance the child they cannot afford. So it's really a win-win. They should do this for white people too, but I guess they're trying to level out economic disparities.

 

I don't have a problem with the government making a loan to women to get an abortion, provided it's only her first abortion, is done before 7 weeks, and she has to pay it back (with maybe 1.5% interest, and she won't be allowed to get into any more non-medical debt before it's paid off).

 

I think your made up scenario is racist.

Medicaid needs to pay for abortions. It will pay for itself in the long run.

 

So mysterious that only you know about it, eh?

 

Actually the FIRST question is:

Is this story even true?

 

Do you think the answer to a hypothetical automatically doesn't matter if the hypothetical is not true?

Here's a hint for you: When thinking about an answer starts getting uncomfortable, that's a sign that you should think about it. It suggests something about the current beliefs you hold may not be true. It's called critical thought. Something that a certain crowd doesn't seem to do very much of...