Abortion Kills Mostly Blacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I DARE you to find a recent study showing some national crisis or social ill is related to White people in America that is significant enough to matter to many people.

I don’t think I could find one, but then again, most of the categories that people care about tend to be studied (crime, illegitimacy, welfare use), and those studies tend to show what you and I have been discussing. Interestingly, though, the studies always seem to rank Asians the highest in all categories.

Actually, here’s some data I found:
http://www.divorcereform.org/chilrate.html

The divorce rate for whites is worse than that of blacks and is increasing faster. Everyone already knows this, though. There are even television shows about it.

Were I to start my own study looking for data that made whites look bad, I’m pretty sure I would know where to look. For example, the gay marriage movement is mostly a white movement. I think it’s bad. Half of the rest of the whites think I’m bad for thinking this way.

Also, the leverage created on the bad home loans was done by mostly 28 year old white MBAs.

What do you think are the long term effects of hearing that those like you are constantly related to something negative based on skin color?

Hopefully, it would cause introspection. It would depend on who was making the claim, what the claim was, and what data they had to support it. [/quote]

LOL.

There are more white people in the country than any other race last I checked. Since when is divorce a national crisis or social ill like the much debated topic of ABORTION?

the last stat I saw listed divorce rates at greater than 50% of all marriages. If whites are greater in number, who is in the dark about them getting more divorces? How is that even a negative in a society that is now used to it?

42

[quote]streamline wrote:
Maybe if the individuals income range was also included. People would have a larger picture to look at. These researchers have thrown race right up front.

I have been in several studies. The question of income was in them all. All good studies cover all the biases. Lack of ability to raise a child is a major facture here. This is a bullshit study.[/quote]

I actually already covered this. You could throw income up there, but you’d still not find a work-around for race because blacks and hispanics tend to be disproportionately in low-income categories. In fact, as far as the study is concerned, race is almost a perfect proxy for income in this case.

43

What the Wash. Post article is is a very poorly written report of the study-- a major and common problem with newspapers abridged reports of science.

You cannont glean a meaningful picture of abortion rates by race without reporting socio-economic status.

This data (from Guttmacher who did the study) is not reported in the story and tells a much more complete story:

? The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women

From this you link to poverty rates (ie incomes) broken down by race and you get a clearer picture.

Modern abortion rates indicate more about socio-economic conditions than anything.

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I DARE you to find a recent study showing some national crisis or social ill is related to White people in America that is significant enough to matter to many people.

I don’t think I could find one, but then again, most of the categories that people care about tend to be studied (crime, illegitimacy, welfare use), and those studies tend to show what you and I have been discussing. Interestingly, though, the studies always seem to rank Asians the highest in all categories.

Actually, here’s some data I found:
http://www.divorcereform.org/chilrate.html

The divorce rate for whites is worse than that of blacks and is increasing faster. Everyone already knows this, though. There are even television shows about it.

Were I to start my own study looking for data that made whites look bad, I’m pretty sure I would know where to look. For example, the gay marriage movement is mostly a white movement. I think it’s bad. Half of the rest of the whites think I’m bad for thinking this way.

Also, the leverage created on the bad home loans was done by mostly 28 year old white MBAs.

What do you think are the long term effects of hearing that those like you are constantly related to something negative based on skin color?

Hopefully, it would cause introspection. It would depend on who was making the claim, what the claim was, and what data they had to support it.

LOL.

There are more white people in the country than any other race last I checked. Since when is divorce a national crisis or social ill like the much debated topic of ABORTION?

the last stat I saw listed divorce rates at greater than 50% of all marriages. If whites are greater in number, who is in the dark about them getting more divorces? How is that even a negative in a society that is now used to it?[/quote]

I’m going to inch out on a limb here and suggest that divorce is a Bad Thing. Do want me to dig up data supporting this as well, or can you do it on your own?

45

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe if the individuals income range was also included. People would have a larger picture to look at. These researchers have thrown race right up front.

I have been in several studies. The question of income was in them all. All good studies cover all the biases. Lack of ability to raise a child is a major facture here. This is a bullshit study.

I actually already covered this. You could throw income up there, but you’d still not find a work-around for race because blacks and hispanics tend to be disproportionately in low-income categories. In fact, as far as the study is concerned, race is almost a perfect proxy for income in this case. [/quote]

Maybe. If the white population falls into the same income range as everyone else in the study. Then you have a direct corrolation of abortion and low income.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I DARE you to find a recent study showing some national crisis or social ill is related to White people in America that is significant enough to matter to many people.

I don’t think I could find one, but then again, most of the categories that people care about tend to be studied (crime, illegitimacy, welfare use), and those studies tend to show what you and I have been discussing. Interestingly, though, the studies always seem to rank Asians the highest in all categories.

Actually, here’s some data I found:
http://www.divorcereform.org/chilrate.html

The divorce rate for whites is worse than that of blacks and is increasing faster. Everyone already knows this, though. There are even television shows about it.

Were I to start my own study looking for data that made whites look bad, I’m pretty sure I would know where to look. For example, the gay marriage movement is mostly a white movement. I think it’s bad. Half of the rest of the whites think I’m bad for thinking this way.

Also, the leverage created on the bad home loans was done by mostly 28 year old white MBAs.

What do you think are the long term effects of hearing that those like you are constantly related to something negative based on skin color?

Hopefully, it would cause introspection. It would depend on who was making the claim, what the claim was, and what data they had to support it.

LOL.

There are more white people in the country than any other race last I checked. Since when is divorce a national crisis or social ill like the much debated topic of ABORTION?

the last stat I saw listed divorce rates at greater than 50% of all marriages. If whites are greater in number, who is in the dark about them getting more divorces? How is that even a negative in a society that is now used to it?[/quote]

Both parties usually survive the divorce, only half the people involved survive the abortion.

47

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Professor X wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe if the individuals income range was also included. People would have a larger picture to look at. These researchers have thrown race right up front.

I have been in several studies. The question of income was in them all. All good studies cover all the biases. Lack of ability to raise a child is a major facture here. This is a bullshit study.

Thank you. Why are so many others blind to it?

Come on Prof, you know why. The same reason why they are blind to the fact that studies like this and the title of this thread can piss certain people off. They are sitting in the position where they can choose to be blind to it. So they do and nothing that is said about it will even sink in their heads. You’ve been on here long enough to know better by now.[/quote]

It’s a damn shame, but you are correct.

48

Though not explicitly about “whites”, “science” studies like this one can be read that way.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:

"In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white women ages 15 to 44, compared with 28 per 1,000 Hispanic women of that age and 50 per 1,000 black women. That translates into approximately 1 percent of white women having an abortion in 2004, compared with 3 percent of Hispanic women and 5 percent of black women. "

Sorry to create another abortion thread, but I thought this was interesting enough to stand on it’s own.

Why would anyone look at this as a “race issue” and not a “socio-economic” issue?

How is racism dead if race keeps getting brought up in such a negative light in reference to minorities on a constant basis?[/quote]

It’s not racism it’s statistics.

50

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:

"In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white women ages 15 to 44, compared with 28 per 1,000 Hispanic women of that age and 50 per 1,000 black women. That translates into approximately 1 percent of white women having an abortion in 2004, compared with 3 percent of Hispanic women and 5 percent of black women. "

Sorry to create another abortion thread, but I thought this was interesting enough to stand on it’s own.

Why would anyone look at this as a “race issue” and not a “socio-economic” issue?

How is racism dead if race keeps getting brought up in such a negative light in reference to minorities on a constant basis?

It’s not racism it’s statistics. [/quote]

Dude, your other posts read like the Sunday comics. Let’s leave the discussions to the guys who don’t think Bush’s main fault was helping them thar’ liberals.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Let’s leave the discussions to the guys who don’t think Bush’s main fault was helping them thar’ liberals.[/quote]

Looks like it’s time to recuse myself from this thread, then!

52

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Consider for a second that if we get labeled this easily with negative race connotations whenever ‘science’ or society sees fit, why would anyone in their right mind think we have an equal or level playing field?

This is bizarre, coming from a scientist. Scientists notice trends, or they form hypotheses and then look at the data to see if they’re confirmed. I, for one, find such data interesting as it illustrates how disastrous Leftwing policies are for the blacks and hispanics that the Left claims to be helping.

The correct action is to stop the negative labels FIRST. You all want cake and the nude waitress to bring it to you as well.

Well, we could outlaw social science research that answers racial questions. Then we could outlaw affirmative action programs and stop asking racial questions on the census and during standardized testing. Something tells me it will be much easier to do the former than all of the latter. We’ve already made it extremely costly to any researcher attempting to study race and IQ. It hasn’t gotten so professionally costly for the professional diversicrats and affirmative activists. I have a hunch that it never will.
[/quote]

We don’t need to outlaw social science. We just need to engage in proper research that considers all factors. As Professor X said, proper a well-designed study would look at abortions among low socio-economic classes amongst ALL races BEFORE making blanket assesssments and breaking things down exclusively among racial lines.

Maybe there are things unique to minority culture that makes them particularly susceptible to unplanned and unwanted pregancies. But it is ludicrous to come to this conclusion before just looking at all poor. Maybe it’s just ignorance and lack of education that knows no racial lines.

Investigations to determine racial differences is not racist. It’s just not effective when proper things are not considered.

53

poorly titled thread. Could have brought on some interesting discussion had it been titled better.
I am reminded of a time someone said to me
1- What the fuck is wrong with you now?
2- Is something troubling you today?
The responses are usually different…same question though.

54

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Maybe it’s just ignorance and lack of education that knows no racial lines.[/quote]

Maybe you just said the smartest thing in this thread.

55

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe if the individuals income range was also included. People would have a larger picture to look at. These researchers have thrown race right up front.

I have been in several studies. The question of income was in them all. All good studies cover all the biases. Lack of ability to raise a child is a major facture here. This is a bullshit study.

I actually already covered this. You could throw income up there, but you’d still not find a work-around for race because blacks and hispanics tend to be disproportionately in low-income categories. In fact, as far as the study is concerned, race is almost a perfect proxy for income in this case. [/quote]

LOL. A “work around” huh? Let me guess, you’ve got an advanced degree in econometrics, don’t you? You “dummy variable” you!

56

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Consider for a second that if we get labeled this easily with negative race connotations whenever ‘science’ or society sees fit, why would anyone in their right mind think we have an equal or level playing field?

This is bizarre, coming from a scientist. Scientists notice trends, or they form hypotheses and then look at the data to see if they’re confirmed. I, for one, find such data interesting as it illustrates how disastrous Leftwing policies are for the blacks and hispanics that the Left claims to be helping.

The correct action is to stop the negative labels FIRST. You all want cake and the nude waitress to bring it to you as well.

Well, we could outlaw social science research that answers racial questions. Then we could outlaw affirmative action programs and stop asking racial questions on the census and during standardized testing.

Something tells me it will be much easier to do the former than all of the latter. We’ve already made it extremely costly to any researcher attempting to study race and IQ. It hasn’t gotten so professionally costly for the professional diversicrats and affirmative activists. I have a hunch that it never will.

We don’t need to outlaw social science. We just need to engage in proper research that considers all factors. As Professor X said, proper a well-designed study would look at abortions among low socio-economic classes amongst ALL races BEFORE making blanket assesssments and breaking things down exclusively among racial lines.

Maybe there are things unique to minority culture that makes them particularly susceptible to unplanned and unwanted pregancies. But it is ludicrous to come to this conclusion before just looking at all poor. Maybe it’s just ignorance and lack of education that knows no racial lines.

Investigations to determine racial differences is not racist. It’s just not effective when proper things are not considered.[/quote]

Come on mate, data not fit the conclusion you want to make? Change the data or tweak that regression 'till you get that answer you’re looking for.

57

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Consider for a second that if we get labeled this easily with negative race connotations whenever ‘science’ or society sees fit, why would anyone in their right mind think we have an equal or level playing field?

This is bizarre, coming from a scientist. Scientists notice trends, or they form hypotheses and then look at the data to see if they’re confirmed. I, for one, find such data interesting as it illustrates how disastrous Leftwing policies are for the blacks and hispanics that the Left claims to be helping.

The correct action is to stop the negative labels FIRST. You all want cake and the nude waitress to bring it to you as well.

Well, we could outlaw social science research that answers racial questions. Then we could outlaw affirmative action programs and stop asking racial questions on the census and during standardized testing.

Something tells me it will be much easier to do the former than all of the latter. We’ve already made it extremely costly to any researcher attempting to study race and IQ. It hasn’t gotten so professionally costly for the professional diversicrats and affirmative activists. I have a hunch that it never will.

We don’t need to outlaw social science. We just need to engage in proper research that considers all factors. As Professor X said, proper a well-designed study would look at abortions among low socio-economic classes amongst ALL races BEFORE making blanket assesssments and breaking things down exclusively among racial lines.

Maybe there are things unique to minority culture that makes them particularly susceptible to unplanned and unwanted pregancies. But it is ludicrous to come to this conclusion before just looking at all poor. Maybe it’s just ignorance and lack of education that knows no racial lines.

Investigations to determine racial differences is not racist. It’s just not effective when proper things are not considered.

Come on mate, data not fit the conclusion you want to make? Change the data or tweak that regression 'till you get that answer you’re looking for.

[/quote]

I guess you don’t understand how science works, especially social science. It takes a long time to design effective studies. Study designers don’t see the flaws and confounds in their own studies.

That’s why there’s such extensive peer-review. And conclusions are not accepted as warranted until the BODY of research, supported by studies with no discernable confounds, mandates a conclusion.

If anyone is putting their own stamp on these results it’s you. The study SUPPORTS the conclusion you want to make, so you are resistant to probe deeper.

This study is not very much different than a study that finds eggs cause high cholesterol without looking at factors like physical activity, bodyfat, and other lifestyle issues.

If a study found that low socio-economic minorities were much more likely to have abortions that low socio-economic whites, I would be the LAST person to call it racist or be up in arms.

58

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I guess you don’t understand how science works, especially social science.
…

If anyone is putting their own stamp on these results it’s you. [/quote]

Either your sarcasm detector is broken or mine is. Now get back to tweaking your regressions to fit the conclusions you want to see!

59

[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
For crap sake, is anyone suggesting that blacks are inheriantly driven to abort their children? No! But, it does lead one to look at laws, policies, and culture to see if there is some solution. I can’t believe the OP feels the need to apologize. This is stupid beyond belief. Don’t worry, I’m out of this thread.

I am not apologizing for posting it. I am apologizing for the appearance that it is a perpetuation of race baiting, which was not my intention. I believe that it would have been better served in the existing FOCA thread. The information I do not regret posting, just the presentation, because I don’t think it deserves it’s own thread.[/quote]

You didnt do anythingwrong by posting this and there;s nothing wrong with the way you presented it.

60

I havent read al the post on this thread so if I bring up somthing that other people have already said I’m sorry. Here’s my view on this problem.

In the 60’s white liberals started bringing social programs to the black community (welfare, food stamps etc). These programs have had a negative effect on the black american family. The black man was no longer needed to raise a family… the government would provide.

Now, lets add in the free sex, free love, counter culture of the 60’s.Suddenly having sex with as many people as you wanted became ok. Guess what else came along with that? Women getting pregnant outside of wedlock. Look on the stats on how many people in prison come from a father less home. Teen girls from father less homes are also more likey to get pregnant.

I really dont want to make a long winded post. I just want you to think about the social ills that liberalism has brought on the black community. Thats why we have such a high abortion rate.