Not all blacks are bad people!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I cannot say that the OP is trying to post something racist but it coincides with what many of us Righties say. I do not find the post itself racist although I do admit to not reading the link.

I wrote what I did based on the emphasis the OP provided.

I think I am mistaking you for the response that downbeatplumb made. 

Fair enough, no sweat.

Hmmm, but race leads to other factors like income, social structure, racial tendencies, political leaning, local legislative powers, economic climate and culture analysis. 
I see this same data get used and I always see it get backed by the implications it can lead to along with the implications it results from. Also it is not Post Hoc if no claim is being made. With this same logic if I was to say, "most of my friends do not like." It does not make it fallacious since no preposition is being put forth. A logical fallacy requires a preposition and this is why logical fallacies do not apply to the field of statistics unless basing an analysis from it.

Except -- in your very first sentence in this paragraph, you explicitly write, "race leads to other factors". Does race lead to those "other factors", or does racism lead to it? That is where correlation vs causation is occurring in the OP's post, and that is exactly the root of my point about post hoc reasoning.

Also, a logical fallacy doesn't require a preposition, which is an element of the English language. Perhaps you mean proposition or premise? In either case, the fact that such is not explicitly stated doesn't mean it is absent; it may well be -- as much racism is -- hidden, either due to social opprobrium or the absence of deeper questioning on the part of the claimant.

Now I can easily tell you what the analysis finds in these statistics and my personal predictions on their future results. I am sure yours differ but we are not jumping the shark before we find a boat. 

Poverty, crime, and race are interrelated here in America. My suspicions about agenda grow when I find someone highlighting one particular cause in any multivariate analysis. Complex problems very rarely submit to simple analyses.

Feel free to offer your own analysis. We'll see whether there's a shark underneath you or not.

I did not state or imply that an agenda must be political. You made a reference to what I assume you thought as an agenda that Republicans have about race and their ways of dealing with it. Am I not correct?

No, you're not -- as you yourself admit, you were making an assumption, and an incorrect one. As for when you implied that an agenda is a political thing:

But people like me want to deregulate the nation not the reverse, so saying that it is somehow a horrible agenda only implies domination of some sort.

What do you mean by "deregulation" is not legislative action? What other "deregulation" is there?

An agenda need not be political. As the linked definition shows in the second denotation, it can be an underlying goal tying together disparate points.

---

Death. 
It is not of my own will that I forced anybody to make the mistake that resulted in their comeuppance. 
Should I try to find ways to enforce regulatory actions on chairs because I made the foolish decision to jump off one and hence forth break my neck? Is it not of my own foolishness that I acquired my price? Should others suffer with ridiculous seating equipment because of my idiocy?

Regulation is useful, though often overdone. But I was asking you about the cost to society for funding abortions vs the cost to society for refusing to do so. Have you considered the implications of your position? How socialized do you think an unwanted, and perhaps even resented, child is? An abortion costs perhaps $500 on average, according to Dr Google. With around 1.2 million per year, that's an outlay of $700 million dollars. Now, what does it cost society to imprison these children? If we're going to look at this from a practical standpoint, let's talk turkey, right?

What makes you think it would be expensive to let abortions go into the market? You do realize that a vast amount of women who get abortions are already on their second if not more.

This is a questionable claim. Could you support it with a link to a good source?

If they are incapable of having adequate intelligence to control sexual desires why would I desire them to acquire benefits meant for the civilized? We are humans and are apart of nature, why would I deluded myself into thinking that I can somehow stop suffering?

And yes that is an honest question

No one's asking you to do it alone. What is being asked here is whether you prefer seeing a smaller portion of your taxes being spent on helping poorer women make responsible reproductive choices, or a larger portion of your taxes funding the support of foster care, prisons, and the like.

Also, your insinuation that these women are uncivilized is duly noted. I wonder how you define that word, civilized?

The idea that we can and should only do for ourselves flies in the face of the human experience. We all do better to the degree that we help each other. It'd be nice if charity picked up the slack, but then that relies on people being willing to help out the less-fortunate. If you're unwilling to do it under the aegis of tax laws, why should I think you'd be willing to help out left to your own devices?