The above number is bad enough. But in New York City, 80% of abortions are had by minority mothers.
In general black mothers abort at rates much higher than their populative representation. Many defenders of abortion will punt to poverty=abortion. But this would also be the case in areas of the country where non-black mothers are in poverty. However, this isn’t the case.
Why is it that black mothers have abortions at such high rates relative to others?
Sifting Reality 
Having a baby is expensive, and the black community is more likely to experience poverty. (35% to the white populations 13%, according to Kff.org)
Without getting into a discussion of whether it’s right or wrong, I think that’s the crux of the reason. Unless there’s a study somewhere that says that wealthy communities experience more Abortion rates? I would think that the poorer the community, the more abortions we see being performed.
I have a thought. Maybe it is because a lot of the black population in, big cities like NYC have drug problems that they can’t/won’t kick, and they decide that it would be better to abort than have a child who is born addicted to drugs, and all of the other potential health issues involved with using drugs while pregnant.
I’m not justifying it. Just trying to explain a possibility.
Connie, thanks for the comment. Howeever, the number one reason, by overwhelming numbers, is that a child inconveniences the mother’s life. I find it difficult to believe, not impossible, but difficult to believe that addict mothers abort out of concern for the baby. Killing a baby is not better for the baby than quitting drugs or getting the baby help after birth.
Bryce, the ptoblem is that of white mothers in poverty, for example, dont abort at the same disproportionate rates as black mothers. That’s the question I’m asking: why?
Black women – and black people in general – tend to be evil and not have the advantage of the sort of moral scruples people like you have? Do you think maybe that’s it?
Because that’s what it sounds like you’re getting at.
Why don’t you ask your black friends?
~Dan
Dan
Youre an asshole. Seriously.
If anything its a liberal ideology since overwhelmingly blacks are Democrats and abortion is sacred among them. Among whites, less than half are liberal democrats.
That is likely the answer Dan.
Ask your black friends what you’ve posted here. Post my response. See who they think is the asshole. Seriously.
A serious question, John: Do you not see how some people will look at your post and not be able to escape that you’re implying just what I asked?
How SHOULD people take this sort of post?
~Dan
Only liberals with a victim mentality who are offended by honest questions would see it like you. Liberals wont talk about real issues and hide behind racial accusations to silence true discourse.
Woah!! I don’t really know why, maybe it’s more accessible in urban areas. But Dan’s response is a little out of left field. Where do you find that implication in the post I wonder?
John…
If anything its a liberal ideology since overwhelmingly blacks are Democrats and abortion is sacred among them
Overwhelmingly (WAY overwhemlngly), black folk are religious, protestant and conservative.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/
Just looking at the available data.
~Dan
You claim to be religious too, but youre as antibible as any atheist here.
@kevin
Thanks for the comment. Youre probably right. Planned parenthood seems to target urban and high minority populated areas to set up shop. It may just be the accessibility.
Dan is the resident bear poker. He jumps to conclusions and reads between the lines then expects you to argue against his suppostition. On another post, he said conservative = racist. So That’s why he concluded what he did and what my implications were.
Kevin…
Dan’s response is a little out of left field. Where do you find that implication in the post I wonder?
Again, I would point you all to ask your black friends, they’ll likely tell you. My black friends read stuff like this all the time and it strikes them as obviously insulting to black folk. They’d just shake their heads and say, “another fool cracker, mouthing off again…”
Anytime you point to a behavior, call it evil, and then point to a bloc of people and say, “Why would they accept that sort of evil…,” you will sound bigoted because you’re assigning an assumed evil (assumed on your part) to a whole group and question that group’s morality.
Just sayin’…
Wow dans black friends are racists. Shocker.
Fact check: I never said conservative=racist. I’ve said the OPPOSITE plenty of times, but never that.
Fact check 2: You don’t know my friends and they are not racist. You are a fool for suggesting that about people you don’t even know.
Dan I said you were implying racist equals conservative and you said ‘I got news for you bubba”
So yes you did liar.
Second you said your black friends would refer to white people as crackers, which is a racial slur. People who use racist slurs are racists. It doesnt surprise me, birds of a feather… youre an admitted racist from long back and therefore it only follows that you surround yourself with them too
You know, John, rather than just knee-jerk reject opinions and suggestions that differ from yours, the wise person might give disagreeing opinions a bit of consideration. Is it possible that everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and is racist? Sure. But is it likely?
Not so much.
Think about that. These could be counted words of advice and an opinion from a different field, rather than an attack by ghouls and demons.
~Dan
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “cracker” is a racist term. If white people using the n word or any of the others are racists, then black people who call white people crackers are racist. Unless you’re suggesting black people can’t be racist.
“cracker” most certainly does not compare to “nigger.” At all. And that was my word, not my friends’ word, I’ve never heard any of my friends use it except for white people.
I am not suggesting black people can’t be racist. I’m suggesting these repeated attacks upon black folk as a group (and questioning the integrity and humanity and work ethic of black folk as John has done and is doing here) is, by definition, racist/bigoted.
And no, John, I did not do what you suggested. You are factually mistaken in the real world.
What we DID say was, in speaking about reports of the KKK and neo-nazis, etc, YOU had said…
There was no definition given as to what constitutes a right wing extremist. It was insinuated that all racists and neo-nazis are right wing.
And I responded, “I hate to break this to you, big fella…”
My point being that KKK members and those sort of people are almost always (always in anything I’ve ever read about them) conservative in values, decidedly ANTI-liberal. If you misunderstood and took that to be me saying that all conservatives are racist, then for that, I apologize. I was speaking specifically of the KKK types spoken of in the report, not of conservatives in general.
I went on to cite multiple KKK websites where they specifically self-identified as anti-liberal, pro-conservative Christian types of people.
So, now that is cleared up, you no longer need to report the falsehood that I said all conservatives are racist, because I never said that, nor do I think it. I was conservative (still am, in many ways). My parents and childhood friends, family members, etc are all conservative and very few of them are racist (some are, but not most).
And no, I am not an admitted racist. Again, not in the real world.
Stick to facts, John, give up delusions and bad understandings. They don’t serve you well.
~Dan
Youve spun very well. But the facts remain, you said right wing (conservatives) equal racist.
And you said your black friends refer to white people as crackers. Thus either they are racists or you presume they are.
Facts.
Ive never questioned the work ethic of blacks. You, like all liberals hear “poor” and think “black”. Black doesnt come to mind immediately to me when I talk about poor people. If it comes to mind to you, I suggest youre racist beyond what youve admitted to being.
Additionally, you foisting the understanding that poor is code for black isnt my responsibility, its your problem. Maybe you wouldnt associate “racist” with “right wing” if youd stop trying to read between the lines.
Dan…after reading through some of these threads, you make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and presuppositions. You make accusations of character that don’t seem to be fair given the actual discussions. I can only assume you’re a regular commenter here, but you don’t seem to be playing fair.
Hey all, take a chill pill. Challenge: wait at least two hours, think about why this personal racism scorekeeping FEELS important to YOU. Then, practice charity toward each other. Mispredications abound. After that, if there is any salient issue remaining, spell it out.
By the way, Dan, you do know how Margaret Sanger, who is in the illustrating meme, impacts John’s intention, right?
Thank you for the suggestion, Kevin. I will strive to be more fair. But I hope you look at the whole of the conversations. When, for instance, John et al are making claims that just aren’t within the world of reality and making those claims as if they were a fact.
I have honestly come to the conclusion that some here are so driven by partisan agendas that they have a sort of self-imposed delusion, where they are unable to differentiate fact and opinion. This is so consistent and on-going, I’ve about given up hope of communicating with these fellas and am just making the occasional note for clarification of facts.
And, it is my opinion, for what it’s worth, that many black folk would read posts like this and, especially in the repetition of questions about the integrity and morality of black and gay folk, begin to think that John may well be racist/bigoted. I offer that as an opinion and a concern, for what it’s worth, as someone who lives life with a diverse group of people.
I almost didn’t post here and maybe shouldn’t have. I’ll take your words into consideration, if for no other reason than the way I might be appearing, in spite of reality.
~Dan
Dan…do you see yourself as non-partisan? Your comments give the impression that you are deeply partisan toward liberal progressivism. I don’t really care except that you are sarcastically condescending to others for having a partisan agenda as though you don’t have one of your own. Just saying how it looks as a new outsider looking in.
By the way, I have gone through some of the threads with lots of comments and I don’t see from others what you claim is there. I think you’re assuming what people really mean. Maybe ask for clarification.
John, I apologize for my words here. I should not have gone down this road. My mistake and I am sorry.
~Dan Trabue
Thank you Dan.
Thanks again, Kevin, but if you read long enough, you see that I repeatedly ask for clarifications, asking things like, “Are you really suggesting… because I can’t believe you’d hold that position…” regularly. And fairly regularly, my questions seeking clarification are ignored.
Case in point, John’s post on “are we losing the ability to resist our gov’t,” where he made a silly and unsupported claim, that violence is “almost always” done by those on the Left. His words…
Its individuals and small groups who commit acts of terrorism which arent Islam related are done by the political left. Theyre the ones who steal signs, vandalize, douse with paint, glitter bomb, throw things, and other things. No matter the country, no matter the act, its almost always someone on the left.
I called him on this, as clearly, violence gets done by all quarters and not by one “wing” or the other. I said there was no evidence of which I was aware of that violence is “almost always” done by those on the Left. I cited a SPLC report and a West Point Academy report that pointed to the hundreds of acts and plans of violence by those on the Radical Right in the US, with no corresponding report by violence on the Radical Left as evidence that it is an equal opportunity problem. I asked John to either support the claim with some factual data or admit he misspoke. He stuck to his guns, in spite of having no evidence.
Eventually, John and his cohorts started citing individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. But since I was literally, specifically NOT claiming that NO violence was done by those on the Left, these random reports did not support his claim or contradict what I was saying.
Repeatedly, I asked him to back off the claim or at least to admit that he can’t support it with data. Repeatedly, he stuck to his guns, “It IS a problem almost always by those on the Left…”
Like that.
As to your question about my ideology: I am anabaptist in faith tradition and on the progressive side of anabaptism, but am quite conservative in many ways. There are many out there who would call the anabaptist opposition to warring to be a conservative view and I tend to take all of Jesus’ teachings pretty literally (no pledges or oaths, no “storing up treasures on earth,” literally “overcome evil with good,” not with violence, etc); I have disagreed with Obama on many of his actions; I am not someone who wants to ban all guns, etc. But by and large, sure, I tend to identify with more progressive ideology.
The difference between my approach and theirs, as I see it, is I clearly identify my opinions as my opinons that I think are rationally sound and morally appropriate, but they ARE my opinions, and I am entirely capable of being mistaken, and I am entirely capable of being convinced my opinion on a matter is wrong, AS LONG AS there is evidence to support it. I am not blinded by opinions and I clearly recognize the difference between my opinions and facts. I’m not at all sure about them and have, on several topics and on several posts, given them opportunity to clarify when they’re speaking of their opinions, as opposed to facts. They have tended to stick to their guns and claim their opinions are, in fact, facts.
I’m concerned that this is delusional/disordered thinking and I’m concerned for what that sort of dialog does to reasonable discussions.
This is problematic, to me, and I would hope to all right thinking people.
~Dan
My answer to your posted question is: I suspect that most all families and mothers – whatever groups they may come from – do what they think is best in the situation for all involved. I share your concern that too many (I don’t pretend to say I know how many) go the abortion route simply because it seems easier and more convenient, without giving deep consideration to all the implications of their actions.
I’d love to see all sides cooperate to do what we can to reduce unintended/unwanted pregnancies and to decrease economic incentives to have abortions.
~Dan
Dan…trust me I see what you’re talking about. My point is you ask loaded questions that already are making accusation in them. It’s as though you’re saying if people don’t see the issue your way they are irrational or uncaring or morally questionable. It’s the way you word your questions that it looks like people are reacting to. It’s not that everyone is innocent but Dan. But the way you discuss topics don’t invite a productive dialogue. It sounds like you’re saying in this thread anyway, that even asking the question why black women have abortions at rated higher than others, which is a fact, is somehow racially insensitive. How can there be honest discussion on this or any issue if people have to walk on egg shells and tip toe around things? How can you say you’re trying to have an honest discussion if you insist that everyone must do so on your terms or else they’re rwnj’s? All I’m suggesting is unload your questions.
We have a history of racism in our nation. I think it is important to recognize that history. IF I wanted to engage in this conversation or a conversation about “the gays,” I would go out of my way to make sure that I am not demonizing these people as a group, that I just have a question. “Given that,” I would say, “I’m wondering…” and then ask my question.
I think it is important to recognize context. That’s all. In our nation, we have a history of known racism and known oppression of gay folk. This is especially prevalent impression of those on the Right. It helps the Right and good discussion, therefore, to go out of their way to recognize this impression/concern that people have of them. That’s all I’m saying.
And I’m not sure what you mean by asking a loaded question.
Look at the example I gave: John made an unsupported and sweeping claim: ALMOST ALWAYS, violence is done by those on the Left.
Do you agree that this is a sweeping claim?
Do you agree that it went unsupported?
I responded by saying that this was, of course, not true. I said…
The facts point to the false nature of your claim.
In brief, conservatives/right wingers who have engaged in acts of violence/terrorism to oppose “foreigners,” Muslims, liberals, Democrats, abortion providers, etc:
And then provided a list of those who’ve engaged in violence who were coming from a conservative framework. I continued…
…for starters. It is a complete falsehood to make the stupid-ass claim that those who kill and cause harm are always on the Left.
And when John (rightly) noted he didn’t say “always,” but “Almost always,” I acknowledged my mistake, but noted that the point remained. That it is irrational to claim that violence is almost always done by those on the Left.
I said…
you can point to liberals who misbehave and I can point to conservatives who misbehave. It’s NOT “almost always” a leftist. That is a falsehood. My fault for leaving out the “almost” but the lie is still a lie. It is NOT “almost always” someone on the Left.
Lacking any data to support your claim, I’d suggest an honest man would admit he misspoke.
What in any of that is “loaded…”? I simply called him (strongly, to be sure, but this is a repeated problem of John’s – making outrageous claims with no support, so it’s not like this was the first time this has happened) on his observably false claim. What is loaded about that?
I do appreciate the chance to process this with someone. I think it is important in our nation for us to learn to communicate with those on the “other side,” and I am very open to learning how to do this better.
Thanks,
~Dan
Dan
If you always inject the racism of yesteryear into every racial issue then we’ll never get past it. At some point you have to let it go. If youre always looking for racism chances are youll find it. Your problem is you are too quick to presume. You assert that when I say poor I really mean black. Why do you do this? Apparently because im conservative and because there a history of racism from the right (or so you allege). So ehy not cut the presumptions and deal with the words actually used. No one here is using dog whistles.
John,
To get back to you original question. My first thought is the statistics are the statistics. In NYC more black mothers abort than give birth. I fail to see how simply reporting the facts as they exist is anything but neutral.
As to why, good question. I have a few thoughts/questions, from a couple of different directions.
1. It’s hard not to be suspicious of Planned Parenthood given the views of Margret Sanger. Part of me hopes that no one in this day and age would seriously hold her views, but I suspect there’s some residual effects.
2. This may be related to #1, but, location, location, location. Every PP location I’ve ever seen is in a neighborhood with a high minority population. Is this because that’s where the folks who want abortions are, or do people choose abortion because it’s close? I honestly don’t know.
3. What are the rates for other demographic groups, or ethnicities?
4. Is there an age component? Are younger black women more likely to have abortions than older black women?
5. There seems to be a certain desire by young urban black men to prove their manhood by having sex with lots of women, unfortunately the by product of this is probably a higher rate of pregnancies in those communities?
6. Why aren’t more people outraged by this statistic?
Unfortunately, this is a huge problem, that apparently can’t be discussed honestly without cries of racism. I do find it interesting that almost all of the mentions of this I have seen is from conservative white men, and without fail the position is that this is a tragedy and that it would be good to explain why things are the way they are.
I ran across this elsewhere and it might shed some small bit of light on the situation.
“Eventually, John and his cohorts started citing individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”
I’d have preferred to stay on topic, but can’t let this go un challenged.
There are over 20 links to violent acts (with multiple links included) engaged in by those on the left. These clearly constitute over “a dozen or two individual acts”. Most of the acts in questions involve groups engaging in concerted and extended violent tactics. Also, included is a link to a study completed under the aegis of the DHS which catalogs that threats from the left.
It is clear that while much effort has gone into minimizing the amount of violent action from the left, there is enough evidence at the other thread to suggest that it’s not just a “dozen or two” random nuts.
I’d rather not let this derail this thread and would suggest, that any further comments go back to the thread where this is closer to the topic.
Brief fact: 20, or 100, or 200, does not = “almost all.”
Simple fact clarification.
I’d hope you could agree to that real world fact.
Kevin, is there anything “loaded” or disrespectful in my pointing out that fact?
Simple clarification, theres a difference between done by liberals amd done in the name of liberalism. I remember you objecting to the instance of the univ of alabama professor who shot her fellow administrators or professors. She was a vocal obama supporter. The la cop who went on a mass killing spree was a huge obama supporter. Neither were acting in the name of liberalism. However, theres hundreds of examples of the occupiers committing vandalism assault rape and murder.
Dan,
In the interest of being factual, I have never made the “almost all” claim. What I have done is demonstrated that your claim of, “… individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”, is quite clearly made up out of thin air.
No more, no less. If you’d be so kind as to not confuse what John has said with what I have said, it might make things easier for everyone.
I really don’t want to derail this thread with this, so any further comment on this will be at the other thread.
John, one way or the other, why don’t you just edit or delete my comments and I’ll go ahead and post on the other thread.
Also, this is what I meant to include that might shed a bit of light.
http://blackdemographics.com/health-2/abortion/
So, Craig, again, here’s a chance: IS John mistaken to make a claim that “almost always” violence is done by the Left? Is there no evidence to support that claim?
If you are merely arguing that sometimes, liberals and conservatives both do violence, then you are making the same argument I have made and you and I don’t have a disagreement.
Here’s your chance. Help me out and clarify your position.
Kevin, it’s requests like this that I’ve made repeatedly to get simple clarifications that have tended to go unaddressed. We’ll see what Craig does, but he had the opportunity in the aforementioned post and passed on it, then.
But one has to wonder why, if Craig agrees with my position and disagrees with John, why he’s giving me grief rather than the person he disagrees with.
That would be an interesting clarification to get, as well.
Craig, I’ll take this request for clarification back to the original post. Here’s your chance.
~Dan
Margaret Sanger began Planned Parenthood with the express purpose of reducing the black population. She was an admitted racist and eugenicist.
Like cogitatingduck mentioned, it doesnt seem like Dan got that, which explains his opening comment.
I’m not getting into any of your other comments.. However, I would like to clarify what I meant. Of course it would be more for convenience for the mother than it would be for the health of the baby. Of course it would be better for an addict to quit doing drugs and have a healthy baby. I do not believe that abortion would be the answer, but I can see how an addict would see it as easier to abort the baby than quit doing the crack or heroin or whatever else they are probably addicted to in order to have a healthy baby. They probably also know that if they have a baby that is born addicted that they will get it taken away and have to deal with some sort of legal action that will probably involve rehab and court, and a lot more hassle. I’m not saying that the statistic points to all addicts. I just can see how there could be a connection between black women in city areas who get abortions, and possible addictions.
Connie, You’re right. A baby to an addict especially, would be incredibly burdensome.
After reading through everything, I think it can be combination of several things. Like you said, more blacks are democrats than republicans, and in the liberal viewpoint, a fetus isn’t the same as a living being, therefore abortion is acceptable. This could explain some of that statistic. I think it’s more of a combination of everything though.
It’s no secret that the black population in the United States still goes through tougher times than the white population does. (MUCH higher prison rates, higher poverty rates, higher abortion rates, higher drug usage rates, etc). Of course, I’m not saying that about EVERY black person, (we have a black president, for christs sake), but the statistics don’t lie. And because Abortion is usually the result of bad circumstances, it makes sense that the population with the worst circumstances has the highest abortion rates. I don’t think we can pick out any particular reason as the main reason that the black community has such a high abortion rate, but I think the combination fits together quite nicely to explain that statistic.
bryce,
It’s not a liberal thing. Blacks are overwhelmingly social conservative. Blacks and Mexicans were responsible for the passage of Proposition 8 in California, for crying out loud. The problem is that young blacks don’t have the same moral compass as their parents.
You can blame it on poverty and locked-up “baby daddys” all you want, but the fact remains that young black women, in general, are more likely to abort than white women, finances aside.
Terrance, John was the one who originally stated that blacks are overwhelmingly democrat. Which they are. (Any statistic will tell you that blacks typically vote with the democrat party, and it’s not just because of Obama either).
And excuse me for trying to answer the question. You say I’m “BLAMING it on poverty and locked up baby daddys”, but the topic of this blog post is, “Why do so many black mothers abort?” Wasn’t the point of the discussion to pinpoint the reasons?
Jesus, if you’re that hostile maybe it’s not worth posting on here.
Terrance…
Margaret Sanger began Planned Parenthood with the express purpose of reducing the black population. She was an admitted racist and eugenicist.
I heard that claim about that individual from decades ago. I also know that those claims are disputed. I have not researched the topic enough to know the facts, but I’m dubious as to the claims put forth by those with an agenda.
I do know that the Southern Baptists were founded by slavery advocates/defenders, but I don’t hold modern S Baptists accountable to their founders’ ideals. Is that not reasonable?
~Dan
Bryce…this is a hot button issue with terrance. Dont take it personally.
Dan…theres nothing to dispute, its in her own writings.
Dan,
Always happy to educate you, my Christian brother.
And also:
And:
She was a racist, eugenicist, and truly evil person.
Yes, they are. But they are also overwhelmingly socially conservative. You’re trying to make a connection that simply doesn’t exist. Young blacks don’t seek abortion because they’re liberal; they seek abortion because they have no sense of responsibility.
You did, bryce. You said: It’s no secret that the black population in the United States still goes through tougher times than the white population does. (MUCH higher prison rates, higher poverty rates, higher abortion rates, higher drug usage rates, etc).
You’re trying to excuse this disgusting, immoral behavior with platitudes.
LOL. You haven’t seen hostile.
Terrance…
Young blacks don’t seek abortion because they’re liberal; they seek abortion because they have no sense of responsibility.
Okay, is this supposed to be a group assessment of all young black people, assuming that because they are young and black, they are irresponsible?
That is a question, seeking a clarification.
And I know some of what Sanger has been quoted as saying. And I know she lived in a different time and I’ve also read that she was very inclusive of black folk in her hiring in a day and time when folk weren’t inclusive or accepting. So, again, 1. I don’t know for sure what her position was – maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t especially racist, I don’t know, 2. I don’t hold people from different eras accountable to today’s standards, 3. I don’t hold modern agencies accountable for what their founders believed.
Do you think that the today’s Southern Baptists should be abused and mistrusted because their founders were racist, pro-slavery types?
~Dan
See there you go. Terrance didnt say BECAUSE they are black and you know ot. He didnt even imply it.
Holy crap, you most certainly do hold conservatives to standards because our country has a history of racism. Enough already.
John, he literally did say it. He said:
Young blacks don’t seek abortion because they’re liberal; they seek abortion because they have no sense of responsibility.
“They,” he said, referring to “young blacks,” seek abortions BECAUSE they (ie, young blacks) “have no sense of responsibility.” But rather than assume the worst, I am asking the question, DOES Terrance really mean that he believes all young blacks – as a group – are irresponsible?
Dan, youre a trip.
Funny how you focused on black amd not young.
John…
you most certainly do hold conservatives to standards because our country has a history of racism.
? Our nation – liberal and conservative – has a very real history of slavery and racism. I do not hold modern liberals or conservatives accountable for what our ancestors did. My ancestors were slave owners and “Indian killers,” but I don’t hold my parents or myself accountable for that fact.
I DO, though, think it is important to recognize our history. The Bible tells us in multiple places that the children will be held accountable for the “sins of the father” for four generations. Now, I don’t think that means God “curses” us like in voodoo curses, but that it’s pointing to the observable reality that our actions have consequences and repercussions and that really big negative actions have really big negative consequences – consequences that last for generations.
But I don’t know what you mean I hold conservatives to standards because of our racist history.
~Dan
John…
Funny how you focused on black amd not young.
?
Interesting claim. What I said was, literally, “is this supposed to be a group assessment of all young black people, assuming that because they are young and black, they are irresponsible?”
How was I focusing on black and not young, since I mentioned both specifically in my question (question, not accusation) seeking clarification?
~Dan
You intentionally parsed it young amd black as though they are seperate considerations.
I seem to recall that the topic was why are black children shorted in such horrifying numbers. But it would seem that it is racist to mention the race of the demographic under discussion. No wonder it’s hard to have a productive conversation. The very people arguing in favor of fewer aborted innocent black kids are labeled racist, and Margret Sanger somehow gets cast as the second coming of Harriet Tubman. Then we can’t forget the history of institutional racism in our history, by we certainly can’t take the entire history of PP into account.
Terrance, I know your instinct is to inundate the thread with quotes from Sanger and her acolytes, but we both know it will be a waste of time Dan has already decided that it doesn’t matter.
We’re talking in generalities, Dan. Fact is, many young black people have never had to do anything for themselves or take responsibility for their actions. And sadly, they seem comfortable having government provide for their every need. Abortion is a quick-fix, an easy way out of responsibility.
Don’t act like I merely quoted things she allegedly said. I quoted her own damn writing and cited it, so it should be easy enough for you to verify should you feel the need.
Yes, she was inclusive of blacks. And her own writing explains why. She didn’t want “Negros” realizing her true goal.
Then you don’t read well.
This is stupid.
I don’t either. I’m merely pointing out the utterly unsurprising fact that Planned Parenthood positions itself in primarily African-American communities. It started there many years ago during Sanger’s time, and for reasons already mentioned.
No Terrance, I’m not trying to excuse the behavior with reasons why they do it. (Though I don’t believe there’s anything to excuse, seeing as how abortion isn’t morally wrong. But we’ve already gotten into that discussion).
I am trying to explain WHY we see abortion rates skyrocket with minority groups. It’s not because the young people don’t have a sense of moral responsibility, as you so crudely pointed out. If that was true, abortion rates would be the same among all races in the same age demographic. Abortions rates skyrocket among communities with high poverty rates, high crime rates, high drug usage rates, and higher prison rates. That doesn’t EXCUSE the higher abortion rates, but those demographics are the correlation between high abortion rates and the black community. Again, I do personally believe they excuse the behavior. But for the purpose of the question, I’m not discussing whether abortion is right or wrong. Rather, I’m discussing the reasons why abortion rates are higher among minorities. And it’s because of a combination of all of the statistics I listed above. To use the argument that young black americans get abortions because young people don’t have moral compasses is wrong because, again, we would see the exact same rates among young white americans.
It’s funny (not really) that Dan suggests now that we can’t hold people of today accountable for the sins of the past. Yet over at my place, he gives a black racist a pass because of the our history of racism. Make up your mind.
Yes, you are. You’re justifying it – or trying to – with left-wing flummery.
You fled that discussion, bryce, because you were losing – and badly. You cannot make a legal or moral argument capable of refuting the scientific facts and the obvious logic of protecting life at all stages of development. Like most liberals, you spam the discussion with repeatedly-refuted left-wing arguments and then run.
I didn’t say “young people;” I said “young BLACK people.” And I have no problem with that remark because it’s true. African-Americans represent a paltry 13% of the population and account for 40% of all welfare recipients! There is clearly a problem of dependence in that community that didn’t exist until Johnson’s “Great Society.”
It’s because they’ve lost that sense of responsibility their parents had. Why take responsibility for your actions if you can just get a free-pass?
No, we don’t.
Marshal, I’ve grown exceedingly tired of your assaults on Dan. You should be ashamed of yourself for attacking a man’s infirmity…Liberals can’t help talking out of both sides of their mouth….
Terrance had said that young black people, as a group, have no sense of responsibility. I asked for clarification and Terrance responded…
We’re talking in generalities, Dan.
Okay, well let’s get specific. What percentage of young black people have no sense of responsibility? You seem to think it’s very problematic, so are you saying over half? 75%? 90%??
How does that compare to young white people, as a group? Do young white people have a much better sense of responsibility? How many of them have no sense of responsibility – 45%? 25%?
Where do you get your data? Do you think it reasonable that people might want you to provide some data if you’re claiming to speak authoritatively? How much have you researched the responsibility levels of black kids vs white kids? One year of scholarly research and studies? Ten years? None? How many black youth have you surveyed and questioned about their motives and motivations? Ten? None?
You cite the higher levels of abortions as at least partially the reason you’ve reached this conclusion about young black people, as a group. How do you know that it’s not the case that they are responsible, but just don’t believe a 3 week old fetus is fully a human and don’t feel morally compelled to allow it to reach full human-hood?
Could you cite your research, if you have any, or clarify that you’ve done no scholarly research on the topic, it’s just your gut feeling on the topic?
[You will all note, there are no hostility, no accusations in my comments here, only reasonable requests for clarifications and support.]
~Dan
I don’t know, Dan, since left-wing appeasers prevent in depth study with their PC nonsense. But I would estimate 70% of young black people have at least an entitlement mentality.
I’m sure it’s much higher, Dan. A lot of people these days – white, black, and purple polka-dotted – have an entitlement mentality, Dan. But sadly, I think it’s higher among African-Americans because it’s been part of their culture for the last 40 years.
Statistics Brain. You’ll note their statistics come from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Stick around, Dan. I’m sure Sifting Reality will surprise you in 2014 with some of its cultural analysis.
No, I didn’t. John cited it; I commented.
I see. So your argument is that a higher percentage of black than white people believe unborn children aren’t “fully human.” Is that it, Dan?
I have not stated an opinion and made no claims. I’ve asked a series of questions based on your claim. Myself, I am glad to say that I do not know what percentage of people – black or white, young or old, male or female – believe when life begins. Again, I ask: Do you?
You cited 70% of black youth have “at least an entitlement mentality. What is your source for that number? How was “entitlement mentality” defined in the research done?
Or, would I be correct in guessing that these are all just hunches you have that aren’t based on scholarly research, just on your best guess?
Would I be correct in guessing that, of the millions of black youth in the US, that you have interviewed – having an indepth, detailed conversation with – fewer than 100 of them to reach this conclusion? Would I be correct in guessing that you have interviewed fewer than 20?
~Dan
And just to help out, perhaps: Terrance, “I have no research to support this, I’m just saying this is how it seems to me” is a perfectly acceptable answer, there’s no shame at all in that answer. I just think it’s more honest if we state right up front on matters like this, “This is just my opinion, not based on any study or serious scholarly research…”
The only harm is if we try to pretend we’re offering something authoritatively factual/true when we are offering our opinion without authoritative support. Right? And I am quite confident that you are and want to be an honest man in how you present your opinions, so I’m just asking for clarification: Is this your opinion – how things seem to you, but not based on research or any serious study? Or do you have some scholarly research to support the claims you make?
Thanks,
Dan
Everyone knows your opinion, Dan, as we’re charmed by your liberal views on a daily basis.
No, I don’t. But you seem to suggest that somehow blacks are more confused than other races. You said, How do you know that it’s not the case that they are responsible, but just don’t believe a 3 week old fetus is fully a human…
I said it was an estimate, my estimate. You really don’t read well, huh?
It depends. Which particular statement are you referring to?
I never claimed to have interviewed anyone. My estimate is based on personal experience; the facts cited within the article; the facts cited within the link I provided; and a general familiarity with African-American culture.
Have I misled you with the phrase, I estimate? Are you having trouble understanding that phrase, Dan?
Yet more fallacies from our friend. I believe this one is called a straw man. I didn’t claim to speak from a position of authority. I stated an opinion, an estimate, and I thought I was pretty clear about that. Now, if you’d like to offer a different opinion then do it.
Again, I have made no claims. I’m simply asking clarifying questions to make sure I understand your position. Now, I think I do.
Based on no research, no interviews, no scholarly studies, but based on your life experience having personally known very well (well enough to assess their motivations), what? – 20 black folk? 50? More? out of millions?- it is your uneducated, un-researched estimate that 70% of all young black people have an “entitlement mentality.”
That’s all I was trying to get at: Clarifing that this is your opinion not really based on research, but just your best guess based on not much.
Your opinion based on not much has been noted, for what it’s worth.
~Dan
Now, having noted that, I would ask you a question: Do you think it is wise or rational to make an “estimate” of millions of black people based on your very limited knowledge of a few black people?
As I noted above: I have NO opinion about the opinions on when life starts that millions of people hold because I have no data or rational basis to form an opinion. Not having any data, I find it wisest to not form any opinions. I prefer to wait until there is data to form any solid opinions – certainly I would withhold citing statistics out of the blue when I have no data.
Do you not think that a wiser, more reasonable tack to take?
~Dan
Terrance…
Everyone knows your opinion, Dan, as we’re charmed by your liberal views on a daily basis.
To be clear: The opinion being referenced here is what people believe – black or white – what they believe about when life begins. I stated the fact that I hold no opinion about it because, frankly, I DO NOT KNOW. I have no data on which to form an opinion.
So, when you say, “Everyone knows your opinion,” I have to wonder what you mean? My opinion on that topic is “no opinion.” Is that what you mean?
Again, I find it wisest not to form opinions without data. On the topic of What are the opinions of Americans as to when life begins? I have no data, so I hold no opinion.
Seems a reasonable place to start, to me.
~Dan
You should be tired of writing stale, endlessly misleading bullshit such as this. But I guess these distortions are the mark of a dull and vacant mind incapable of anything new or conclusive. Your bromides are as familiar to us as the strained gargle of a wash tub drain. It’s common, typical, prosaic.
I’d suggest you try again – except I know precisely what to expect.
Facts:
Black people are 13% the population but nearly 40% the welfare demographic.[1]
Blacks are seven times more likely to murder than whites; and eight times more likely to commit robbery. [2]
1 in 3 black males will end up in prison. [3]
Black babies are more likely to be aborted than born in NYC. [4]
Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women. [5]
Clearly, something is severely wrong in the black community. Now, I suggest all these facts lead to one simple conclusion: young blacks do not take responsibility for their actions because they’ve never had to; white guilt in the form of left-wing policies has ruined them by providing for their every need.
“Oh, heat shut off? Here’s a check.”
“Oh, no place to live? Here’s the keys to a subsidized apartment.”
“Oh, don’t want to work? Here’s a welfare check.”
“Oh, and take this free cell phone, these food-stamps, and this brand new Community Center. And when you vandalize and ruin that center in a few years, we’ll build ya a new one!”
You think you’re helping them by arguing with me? You’re not. You’re perpetuating the problem by ignoring it. Blacks are not an inherently lazy, stupid, or violent race. Once liberals realize that, blacks will be better off.
Before liberals got involved with the war on poverty amd created en mass welfare programs, blacks the black unemployment rate was lower than white unemployment. The child illegitimatacy rate was nil, they were married at higher rated than whites, and their net worth was equal with whites…nationwide. not to mention the poverty rate was lower than whites. liberalism ruined the black community.
Ah, yes, the glory days of the 1940s-1950s for the black community. They sing the praises of those days all the time, just like back when they was pickin’ cotton!
Funny.
Terrance…
Blacks are not an inherently lazy, stupid, or violent race. Once liberals realize that, blacks will be better off.
Of course, I never said this, did not hint at this and do not believe this. You are the one that said young black folk have no sense or responsibility, not me.
As to your facts, no one is disputing them. I’m merely pointing out that they do not back the claim that 70% of young black folk have no sense of responsibility. THAT is the claim that is unsupported by research or facts, just a number you’ve made up out of thin air, if I’m understanding you correctly.
But again, that was the purpose of my questions to you: DO you have data to support the specific claim that 70% of young black people have no sense of responsibility?
That is me asking a clarifying question. It is not me making a claim on my own part. The only claim I’m going to make is to echo your position to make sure I’m understanding you correctly – that is, “I DO have data to back that 70% claim and here it is” or, “NO, I have no data to back that claim.”
As to the stats you cite, it doesn’t support your case to cite stats and then reach a conclusion not supported by the stats. See here:
There are 4 million traffic-related deaths every year, globally.
There are tens of millions of people maimed by car wrecks.
There are about 1 million asthma-related deaths due at least partially to auto smoke.
Therefore, 70% of drivers have no sense of responsibility.
There is NOTHING in my stats that supports that specific number or that demands that conclusion. I might SPECULATE that conclusion, but it would be based on NOTHING concrete, just a speculation I have entirely unsupported by research or data and a number I pulled out of thin air based on the notion of stats that I do not like on a concern I have. But just because it is a real problem does not mean that my conclusion is supported by those facts.
Do you get my point?
~Dan
As a serious response to your comment, John: Of course, no one wants to see the breakdown of any community’s families. We want to learn how to better strengthen families. The question is whether your conclusions are rational or valid. You’re welcome to them as a hunch and there may even be kernels of truth to them, but unless you have data to support that conclusion, it remains your hunch, not a fact.
I’d suggest that there are a wide array of reasons the black community has suffered, the long-term effects of hundreds of years of slavery and overt racism, bad policies in a variety of areas, changes in society in general, etc. The wise person looks at all reasons and all data and takes them into consideration. The partisan fool looks to one reason and blindly says, “It’s THEIR fault.” whoever “They” may be.
I advocate for wise, thoughtful, helpful, empowering approaches to the problems we face, not rash, patriarchal/patronizing, partisan, blaming sorts of approaches.
~Dan
Dan. Economically blacks were doing better in the 50s and 40s than now.
Since one would be hard pressed to find any expert who would not say that traffic accidents are largely preventable, it would be reasonable to suggest that 70% of drivers lack a proper level of responsibility as regards their driving. Thanks for shoring up the argument, Dan.
Marshall…
it would be reasonable to suggest that 70% of drivers lack a proper level of responsibility as regards their driving. Thanks for shoring up the argument, Dan.
???
No, Marshall. That is not how statistics work. You can’t just pull a number out of thin air, with no data to back up the conclusion other than a hunch and call it valid or rational or “sciencey…”
Come on.
Anyone?
I mean, seriously…
Dan
John…
“better off economically in 1950”
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b63v3/is_it_true_that_american_blacks_were_generally/
Too much rancor here, but how about this explanation, Dan?
Statistics do show a disproportionately high abortion rate in the African American community, a construct of the social sciences. Charles Murray in Coming Apart documented a paucity of cultural/social capital in working class white America. Working class whites and African Americans generally suffer from a dominant, white liberal elite culture which has reigned openly for 50 years in entertainment, news, academia, big business, and to a lesser extent, government. Since this dominant class is concerned with stereotypes, stigma, and triggering, it has neglected the idea of “personal responsibility” or accountability. While these elites have benefitted from cultural capital which mecessarily stresses these values, they unfortunately are blind to the effect of their Orwellian campaign to do away with stereotypes, stigmas, and that curious thing called discrimination. Hyperbole aside, does this sound like a good explanation?
No Terrance, I didn’t flee that conversation. I left the incessant attacks which hardcore conservatives such as yourself are so fond of. There comes a point where people are so hateful that they create a toxic environment and are incapable of listening to reason. I left the conversation because no matter how many reasonable arguments I made, you went off on extremist tangents and hate-filled remarks. You make fun of liberals for having wishy-wshy hearts, but I’ll take that over hearts filled with anger any day. I debate intellectuals gladly, but you sir are not an intellectual. You’re a hard-lined extremist who listens to logical arguments and then makes completely illogical responses. There comes a point where it’s no longer a debate, which is why I left.
For example, I made the argument that blacks get abortions due to the fact that they’re more likely to experience hard circumstances. I backed this argument up with statistics saying that blacks have higher prison rates, higher drug usage rates, higher crime rates, and higher poverty rates. You look at those statistics and somehow incredulously say, “NO. THEY GET ABORTIONS BECAUSE YOUNG BLACKS DON’T HAVE A MORAL COMPASS”
Yes Terrance, lets disregard statistics and instead try to explain behavior with your (slightly racist) opinion. You say you aren’t racist because you’re focusing on the “young” and not the “black” part, but then you don’t refute the fact that young white americans don’t have as high of abortion rates as young black americans. If “Young” was the answer as to why black americans get more abortions, than we would see the same rate of abortions among young white americans. Therefore, your arguments falls and FELL a long time ago. But again, you’re going to respond to this with your usual illogical remarks justifying you’re own hard-lined views . THAT’S why I leave conversations. Not because I’m “losing”, but because there comes a point where I know that no matter how willingly I enter a discussion ready to open up my mind and others mind, (the point of a debate), you enter discussions such as this only to belittle the other side and prove your own points to yourself. And yes, I enter these discussions with an open mind and engaging with intellectuals such as John has challenged some of my viewpoints in fair ways. I love that. Engaging with angry extremists such as yourself does nothing for opening up my mind in any way, because I know you’re not willing to open up yours. THAT’S why i choose to leave conversations with you.
I didn’t attack you – and ya know it. I attacked that mess you call an argument.
Reason? Ha! That idiocy you offered bears no resemblance to reason, logic, or sense.
You didn’t make any reasonable arguments. You stupidly and incorrectly asserted that life, according to the law, doesn’t begin until brain waves develop. I proved you wrong. I then explained why such a starting point is inconsistent with the fact that our laws reflect the utmost regard for the preservation of life.
Yes. Because facts are extreme and hateful.
Liberals are angrier than any conservative I’ve come across.
Such a dubious statement, given the stupidity with which you so frequently operate.
Facts are now illogical, ‘eh?
You left because you’re a left-wing half-wit who stupidly believes each thought he has is pure gold and can’t stand seeing them refuted.
I expounded on that argument in my reply to Dan, so perhaps you should familiarize yourself instead of spouting off like a moron.
And now facts are racist. Ugh. Anyway, have you ever wondered WHY blacks are so poverty-stricken, you idiot? That’s what I was trying to explain.
I didn’t say that at all. I said I focus on YOUNG BLACKS because their generation has never had to do anything for themselves.
So, three paragraphs of stupidity and not one refutation of my argument. Nice.
Dan,
Like I said, my citations all point to one thing: blacks have lost their sense of personal responsibility. And I estimate that around 70% of blacks have lost that personal responsibility. Do I have a study to prove that particular estimate? No. That’s why it’s called an estimate – but it’s not baseless, and you know it.
Now, if you have a different interpretation of the data, then I’d like to hear it.
Dan,
That Reddit link you offers doesn’t refute John’s point.
Duck (may I call you Duck?)…
Working class whites and African Americans generally suffer from a dominant, white liberal elite culture which has reigned openly for 50 years in entertainment, news, academia, big business, and to a lesser extent, government. Since this dominant class is concerned with stereotypes, stigma, and triggering, it has neglected the idea of “personal responsibility” or accountability…
Hyperbole aside, does this sound like a good explanation?
No.
1. We have “suffered” from a dominant liberal elite culture? How so?
1a. For one thing, our culture is a combination of views, liberal and conservative and hedonistic and libertarian and all points in between and around. Until very recently (10-20 years), the “dominant culture” (including media) has not been “liberal” on issues of gay concerns. Our big businesses, in general, are hardly what one would call “liberal” (certainly some are/have been, but nothing like a majority, it seems to me). Our US culture has been for decades quite conservative/traditional Christian and only in the last 25 years or so has that dominance begun to lose its grip (ironically, I’d argue, precisely because of their dominance, which was construed as negative, irrational and immoral by an increasing band of the population). So, I wouldn’t buy that our culture has been dominated by a liberal elite – some areas have and other areas have not.
1b. Suffered in what way? Civil rights has been an improvement. The end of oppression of gay folk has been an improvement, an increasing number of folk would say and, I think, reason and morality supports. Better views and healthier approaches to parenting and marriage have been an improvement. Better approaches and policies about how we treat the environment have been an improvement. etc.
Now, certainly, there have been negatives or “suffering” along the way, too. The breakdown of families, for instance, has had negative repercussions, but I would not lay that solely at the feet of a “dominant liberal culture,” but at all our feet.
2. All in all, I’d say that while there have been some negatives associated with the past 50 years, that it has been a net gain to society, morality and rational, good living. A large number of men, women, black folk, hispanics, gay folk, mentally ill folk, etc, would NOT want to go back to the “better” days of the 60s.
And all of that to say, What do you mean “suffer…”?
And to the point of neglecting personal responsibility, I do not know that we can lay that at any one group’s feet or any one policy, but rather, we’d have to assess the pros and cons of each policy. Our environmental regs, for instance, have improved greatly at insisting on personal and civic responsibility. Our approaches to dealing with the poor have been a mixed bag of both encouraging and (unintentionally) discouraging personal responsibility.
Are any of you fellas familiar with the work done by social workers with, for instance, homeless men, homeless families, homeless veterans? Are you aware that case management is all about empowering the individuals involved to be more, not less, personally responsible? Setting aside money, making good spending plans and habits, etc?
On the other hand, some of our older welfare programs – it could be argued (and has been argued) – encouraged an unhealthy dependency and a lack of personal responsibility.
So, I guess I would have to ask for some clarification, Mr Duck, but I don’t believe I’d agree with your assessment.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Dan
Oh, one more thought, CG: I think it can be reasonably put forth that our approach to dealing with gay folk anytime prior to the last 20 or so years has been one that greatly discouraged personal responsibility. By telling a group, “You’re evil, you’re not welcome in our churches, you can’t have that orientation and be part of polite society, you certainly can’t openly “marry” one another!” we discouraged responsible outlets for expressing sexuality (within a committed relationship) and encouraged irresponsible, unhealthy outlets like what we might call the “underground gay scene” that often was pretty hedonistic and irresponsible, in my opinion.
Just for an obvious (obvious to many of us, anyway) example of how our more traditional culture of the pre-1970s encouraged irresponsibility.
~Dan
Dan, to respond specifically by what I mean by suffering:
“Working class whites and African Americans generally suffer from a dominant, white liberal elite culture which has reigned openly for 50 years in entertainment, news, academia, big business, and to a lesser extent, government.”
Take suffering to be “oppressed.” That is, according schools of thought that consider privilege and oppression, there is a dominant class at the apex of our society that consists of rich, mostly white people. Contrary to popular belief, these people at the top have generally progressive views.
Please for a moment try to filter out all preconceptions of how conservatives and liberals are supposed to be. No thought of gay rights, or racism. Let’s just look at socioeconomic status. I promise, there is an insightful nugget in this.
Take music and film superstars. There is one we know who is rich, and can afford literally to go to Africa and adopt a child. She has lacked commitment to a life partner. Her songs reflect a cavalier attitude about how to live life. She is rich and famous, and can afford to live a life of hedonism, writ large. A bad role model, she sends the wrong message to her fans. Most privileged kids are not damaged too badly by her example. But underprivileged kids, such as Murray’s white working class, and African Americans stuck in bad neighborhoods, lack parents, good teachers, safe environments. They suffer for the lack of condemnation of promiscuity, for the selfishness, indulgence, and self-gratification this singer puts out there.
Very few of her well-off, well-coiffed peers rise to condemn her, because that would look prudish, and not be popular. These folks profess to be caring, promote charity, and get involved in all sorts of activism. Tweet this hashtag to end world hunger. They make public service announcements, and speak out against certain politicians and businesspersons as being greedy. They are going to change the world. They are going to empower children. Except they don’t.
What’s the matter? To impart social capital, the very thing that would empower these children, is anathema. It sounds too much like judging people. It sounds like you can’t empathize with others. It sounds like you’re blaming the victim. Seriously, we have banned stigma and annihilated the normal. This is civilizational suicide. We must restore a way to talk about responsibility and accountability. But this is the last thing Universities, Hollywood, and the political left want to talk about. Not because they are bad or defective, but because they can insulate themselves from the objects of their pity, and always blame distant, flyover country conservatives. That is the true tragedy.
Now I know that seemed intense, but that’s my narrative to counter yours. I think we both have some valid points. Lastly, I just disagree with the core of what you’re saying about gay rights. But you can continue that conversation on one of my blog posts if you’d like.
Where you say…
To impart social capital, the very thing that would empower these children, is anathema.
You think condemning promiscuous behavior by wealthy, glamorous “role models” will be “empowering” to poor children, is that what you’re saying?
If so, I would just say I don’t agree. You and I no doubt may agree about ostentatious displays of wealth and promiscuity being unhealthy and not something to promote or idealize, but I’m not seeing how condemning folk is going to lead to a place of empowerment of the poor. Especially if that condemnation is coming from middle class white religious guys, that would just make the ostentatious martyrs to be supported, rather than less-than-ideal role models for youngsters.
But maybe that’s not what you mean. Please clarify if I’m reading you wrongly.
Thanks,
Dan
Oh, and where you say….
Take suffering to be “oppressed.”
Are you saying that you think that the poor are oppressed by Liberal ideals? And that these ideals include hypersexuality and ostentatious displays of wealth and “sexy” dancing and singing in skimpy clothes?
Could you clarify a bit more? Oppressed by what, exactly?
Thanks,
Dan
“You’re evil, you’re not welcome in our churches, you can’t have that orientation and be part of polite society, you certainly can’t openly “marry” one another!”
Would it be possible for you to provide a citation for this quote? Or perhaps an instance of anyone but the whacko (liberal democrat) Fred Phelps, saying something anywhere near this?
There are any number of my gay and lesbian friends who have been told this – in a number of subtle and not-so-subtle ways – as they have been kicked out of/reject by their families and churches. Are you unaware of the history of how gay folk have been treated in this nation (and really, around the world)?
Here’s a link to a story about a church kicking out a mother, an aunt and uncle – the uncle being a respected church elder – because they failed to “repent” for accepting their lesbian daughter/niece…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/22/tennessee-church-kicks-out-longtime-members-for-their-quiet-support-of-gay-daughters-civil-rights/
Much worse words have been used in the process of kicking people out of homes and churches. I’ve heard it from people burned by these types of churches and Christians.
Believe it or not, it’s real, it’s happened and still happens.
~Dan
I read your link and never saw the word evil. However, I grant that something similar was said.
In earlier conversations you’ve seemed to agree that it is permissible for churches to restrict membership to people who refuse to repent of a particular sin.
Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong for a church to refuse membership to someone who refuses to repent?
Personally I don’t necessarily agree with the way this situation seems to have been handled, although with the lack of any real details of the process or any sort of coverage of both sides of the story (like I learned oh so long ago in my journalism classes), it’s hard to really make an accurate conclusion based on the story as written. Anyway, I (or the church I attend) wouldn’t handle things like this, but I’m sympathetic to a church being able to establish criteria for membership and to live by those requirements.
Anyway, thanks for the example.
Not sure how it relates to the topic though.
See Terrance, proving my points exactly. The more I try to reason logically with you, the more you fail to construct even a semblance of an argument. This is usually the point where I leave, because no matter how logical I try to be with you, you resort to calling me “stupid.”
I’ll pray for you. :) <3 <3 <3
How’s that? You insulted me repeatedly in that poorly written diatribe above and I merely responded in kind.
And of course this is a last ditch effort to save face.
You insult me, I insult back. And my insults have the benefit of being true.
I’ll try one last time to refute your incredibly asinine, racist arguments though. Just to hopefully get through to that angry, dense skull of yours. (I’m still going to pray for you though, I actually understand what the phrase, “love your neighbor”, really means)
You said that you focus on “young blacks because their generation has never had to do anything for themselves” without backing up that statement ONCE. How is this not a racist generalization? The reason that the black community has high poverty rates, high drug rates, high crime rates, and a high prison rate is NOT because they’re lazy. That’s a pretty racist argument.
Like the answer to the current article question, the answer to why blacks lag behind in so many socio-economic circles is a variety of reasons. Family structure being the chief among them. 85% of black children in poverty homes are raised by single mothers. It’s not because young black Americans are just simply lazy individuals, but many of them are raised in broken homes and turn to gangs in adolescence in order to fulfill the social need to belong which we all possess. (I can find even more stats on black membership in gangs, if you want).
It’s much more complex than black individuals simply being lazy and relying on welfare. The home life and beginnings for a lot of black individuals are rough and set them on a path of failure. You can make the argument that this makes them “lazy”, but the reasons are much more complex than that. There’s a whole socio-economic system that has existed for decades which puts the African American community in a position to fail. It’s not a simple matter of single characteristic that determines their aptitude for abortions, which is what you seem to be implying. It’s a system of poverty, drug usage, crime, prison times, and family structure which is a recipe for disaster. Those are the reasons black people get abortions at higher rates, not because they are “lazy”. And no, being “lazy” does not cause those circumstances. What causes those circumstances is the socio-economic system which we have in place today. You want to stop blacks from getting abortions? Telling them not to be so lazy is NOT the answer.
There, I’m done with this conversation unless you have anything actually constructive to say for once, (And seeing your track record on this conversation doesn’t get my hopes up)
But if you want me to ask for anything specifically in my prayers for you, feel free to ask. (I’m being serious)
bryce,
You’re not capable of refuting my arguments, and so your attempts are nothing more than an exercise in futility. You are not a brilliant, enlightened, and courageous soul charged with battling evil – though I’m sure you think so. You’re an idiot, bryce, and instead of discrediting arguments, you attempt to discredit people. You’ve referred to me as a fanatic, a racist, and a bigot since visiting Sifting Reality, and I’m tired of it and that’s why I took the gloves off and started attacking you. I respond to people in kind.
Now, to your arguments.
Liar. I posted this earlier:
Facts:
Black people are 13% the population but nearly 40% the welfare demographic.[1]
Blacks are seven times more likely to murder than whites; and eight times more likely to commit robbery. [2]
1 in 3 black males will end up in prison. [3]
Black babies are more likely to be aborted than born in NYC. [4]
Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women. [5]
If you compare the black culture of today with that of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, you expect to see improvement. You don’t. You see the exact opposite. Why? Dependence. Blacks were never dependent on government until the advent of Johnson’s Great Society in the 60s, and once they became dependent, they naturally lost their motivation. They don’t have to work hard because their needs are supplied by government. Liberalism ruined black people.
Are you capable of reading? I said: Blacks are not an inherently lazy, stupid, or violent race. Once liberals realize that, blacks will be better off.
So, you’re either a liar, an idiot, or both. I said liberals treat blacks as though they are lazy, stupid, and violent. I never said they were.
African-Americans are losing their sense of responsibility because of government. THAT was my answer to the original question.
I really wish you’d spare us the platitudes. Their poor socio-economic status, as John noted, is the result of liberalism, not racism. And I would think someone so concerned with statistics would know this already. All you need to do is compare the current numbers to those in the past and you’ll begin to see what I’m talking about.
Now, if you can’t follow along with the conversation and understand the things people are saying; if you prefer to lie and insult rather than learn or debate, then get the hell out of here. I am sick and tired of my remarks being twisted and taken out of context by a small-minded child.
Tee-hee, don’t get mad at me for “twisting” your remarks when all I’m doing is shedding light on them. Thanks for the insults though, I know that some individuals often resort to personal attacks when logic fails them. And you’re quite adept at fitting as many personal attacks in your arguments as you possibly can. I wonder what that says about your character?
I’m still praying for you Terrance. I could continue and “twist” your words, (in all reality just continuing to point out the backpedaling and hypocrisy which is so prevalent in your writings), but I won’t because I don’t want to upset you further. I’ve already made my point, as any rational person can see here. I can only hope that you read the bible further to open up your heart and your mind so that you become capable of holding a pleasant conversation with somebody who disagrees with you intellectually. The capability is sadly not within your reach at the moment. :(
Dan, to answer your question:
You think condemning promiscuous behavior by wealthy, glamorous “role models” will be “empowering” to poor children, is that what you’re saying?
No, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. There are two parts to social capital: positive values to aspire to, and negative values to shun. And yes, absolutely if those de facto role models did not simulate sex acts on stage, that might do something to tamp down on the loss of sexual innocence that underprivileged children suffer. It is not about condemning. It is a Christian tenet that you are what you eat–with your mouth to your body, with your eyes to your soul. Garbage in, garbage out. It is not for nothing that individuals are warned to keep their thoughts clean and their eyes away from what is damaging to the soul.
Are you saying that you think that the poor are oppressed by Liberal ideals? And that these ideals include hypersexuality and ostentatious displays of wealth and “sexy” dancing and singing in skimpy clothes?
I’m sure you have an ideal impression of liberal values. What I am referring to is not the noble spirit of the civil rights movement, but the bankrupt zeitgeist of the American cultural revolution associated with the 1960s. It was so selfish and impossibly idealistic, and it has permitted many adults to live an extended and even indefinite adolescence.
As a person of color who works at a California public university, let me recommend a book by an African American scholar that documents this spiritual malaise: White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed The Promise of the Civil Rights Era.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060578637
Dan, I know you keep asking critical questions about conservative views, but let me assure you that as a thoughtful Christian, I truly believe that some views held by the Left have caused unintended and devastating damage on the least fortunate. I’m not trying to trash the liberal/progressive position wholesale.
I’ll answer any substantive questions, but not ones that assume the worst of intentions from conservatives. Best I think actually to give this conversation a break.
bryce,
Yet another one of your sorry attempts to save face. Shame.
Hmm. Pretty sure I’ve already proven that you’re a liar. According to you, I said black people are lazy…Only I didn’t say that – and people can read back through this thread for proof. I said: Blacks are not an inherently lazy, stupid, or violent race. Once liberals realize that, blacks will be better off.
So, another lying liberal. Isn’t that odd?
Oh, you mean that diatribe above in which you refer to me as an extremist and racist? Sort of like that?
I guess I just have a way with words.
Such a sorry child. I’ve been clear throughout this entire thread. You’re just an idiot who can’t seem to follow along.
Now, the next time you fail to address my arguments and lie about me, your remarks will be deleted. I’m not going to allow some pathetic liberal to spread lies and misinformation that might influence people who are too lazy to read the entire thread. I didn’t once refer to black people as lazy and I’ve made no racist remarks. You just can’t defend your bull shit, as usual.
So, either address my argument or shut your mouth.
Because rich, mostly white, mostly male abortionists and the rich, mostly white, mostly radical feminist females who run the abortuaries actively market abortions to blacks. And they want taxpayer-funded abortions to increase the 3-to-1 black to white ratio even higher .
CG…
What I am referring to is not the noble spirit of the civil rights movement, but the bankrupt zeitgeist of the American cultural revolution associated with the 1960s.
My point on this would be to suggest that any libertine/hedonistic “values” encouraged by many over the years are not part of liberal values, although, certainly some liberals have embraced that approach to matters of sexuality, as have some conservatives. I just don’t think liberal values include celebrating a hedonistic lifestyle. Liberals have tended to go softer on that – discourage the harsh condemnations of those with “alternative lifestyles,” but the celebration of hedonism is simply not part of liberal values.
CG…
I’ll answer any substantive questions, but not ones that assume the worst of intentions from conservatives. Best I think actually to give this conversation a break.
Perhaps you don’t know my story, but I come from a conservative/very traditional Southern Baptist background. My parents and many friends and families are still quite conservative. I rejoice in many of the values passed on to me by conservative friends and teachers. My concern for the poor, my taking the Bible seriously, my Christianity itself, all comes from my conservative background.
I do not come to assume the worst of conservatives. At all. I’m speaking to specific notions advanced by specific people. For instance, the way very real traditional, conservative people have treated very real gay folk – rejecting them from their churches and even from their very homes, calling them harsh names and assuming they are evil… those sorts of things. I don’t think those are conservative values, I just think those are wrong values (treating folk that way).
So, where you say…
I truly believe that some views held by the Left have caused unintended and devastating damage on the least fortunate.
I would agree. For SOME views from some on the Left, no doubt. Just as some views from the Right have caused unintended and devastating damage on the least fortunate.
For instance, the notion that we ought not use public dollars to assist prisoners (way too often, prisons are just holding cells of a collection of poor, especially minority, people). Studies show that investing, for instance, $1 million in educational/rehab programs for prisoners reduces recidivism by a great amount, saving, let’s say, $2 million. It’s a smart investment for we, the people AND it’s just a smart way of dealing with folk who’ve made wrong choices and ended up in the worst of situations. To say, “NO! We should not help these people, or at least not with public dollars” is only hurting ourselves and some of our poorest family and neighbors.
I think we need to be smarter about how best to help the poor, the down and out. I just don’t but into the notion that there is anything inherently wrong or harmful with actual liberal values. I think we need not to just knee jerk give money, but that we need to look at what works, demonstrably.
I would think this notion would be something that conservatives and liberals could rally around, IF we weren’t so antagonistic towards one another, looking for results and cooperation, not blame and demonization.
~Dan
Dan, you sound like someone who could work with others across the aisle. Good for you.
I am skeptical of the study you cite, in a way that you have been of another cited here on Sifting Reality. One thing I learned in undergrad is correlation is not causation. As you have asked before, who defined the control variables? What was the scope of the study, and why? But these questions can be asked as an infinite regress, so please do not answer in this instance. It will be better I believe for you to refrain, since words and time are limited and must be judiciously used.
I agree with you, we need to be smart about helping the poor. Part of this I think is to recognize the lesson of the failed welfare state. Just pumping money does not solve a problem. Bureaucrats can be trained to help, but they are often restrained by red tape, or as with the infamous rubber room teachers, may be insulated from the consequences of choosing to underperform. Too many so-called rights and lawsuits to protect those rights. If there is one thing liberals can’t bring themselves to do, it is to pare back rights.
The best solutions come when people who feel invested in an outcome take action themselves. This is why private entities, like NGOs, businesses, and churches can deliver results. Read Arthur Brooks’ The Road to Freedom. The cutting of a public budget does not automatically mean some public good is going to suffer.
As for LGBTQ, I believe you that some people you know have acted uncharitably toward such identifying individuals, and that should be opposed. However, when an opinion appears in public, such as that there is no right to government-recognized same sex marriage (a view I hold), it is not necessarily associated with these instances of deplorable treatment.
Jesus was a master of distinctions. He came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. I believe it is honoring to Christ to make true distinctions be known when they ha e been forgotten. Human rights is an area where we need to restore an accurate understanding. Simply put, there are too many rights today, and it is undoing civilization.
I agree with some of what you say, CG, for what it’s worth. A few follow ups. You mentioned a study I cited, I’m not sure what study that was or what that comment was in reference to, just for what it’s worth. I’m pretty sure I have not cited any study in this particular thread.
Oh, are you speaking of the prisoner education studies? I like to use that example because there are so many studies done on this topic from a wide variety of places and every study I’ve ever read supports the notion that increased education/rehab services pay for themselves in reduced recidivism.
I didn’t really vet it real closely, but here is just one source that seems to be offering links to multiple studies on the topic…
http://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/
Where you say…
Part of this I think is to recognize the lesson of the failed welfare state. Just pumping money does not solve a problem.
I agree that there were certainly mistakes made in how we handle assisting the poor. I’m quite sure that there still are. And I’m quite sure that mistakes are made at the gov’t assistance level AS WELL AS at the NGO/private sector level. There are no magic bullets to the varied and complex problems of poverty, no single right answer.
Some people (many people) can receive temporary public assistance for a time when they’re struggling, recover and move on to become self-sufficient. For those people, some temporary financial assistance is a great thing – whether that’s from churches or from the state or some other organization or family member.
Other people – also no doubt many – might grow dependent on assistance. For a variety of reasons – lack of emotional or mental wherewithal, upbringing, personal weakness, drug addictions, etc – some people need more direct help in what social workers call case management. And with this sort of help, many in this group go on to become self-sufficient.
For other people, if there is NO help forthcoming, that motivates them enough to do something not to just sit down and die and for these type of people, maybe NO help is the best help.
For other people still, it doesn’t seem to matter what sort of help they receive, they remain unable to attain self-sufficiency. Now, for a good number, this might be for what we might agree are legitimate reasons – simple lack of mental acuity, serious disabling conditions, they’re only six years old, etc. For others, it may not be clear what the problem is – maybe they are undiagnosed bipolar or other less obvious mental condition or maybe they’re just plain lazy and ornery and that is the life they want.
Living my life in poorer neighborhoods, surrounded by social workers, teachers, mental health workers and other related fields… going to a church that regularly assists a variety of people, I’ve seen or heard of a wide cross section of the poor and have seen enough to know that, if it were a simple problem, we’d have resolved it by now.
Does all that seem fair to you?
As I have said in the past, I fully support families and churches/non-profits/friends stepping up and trying to solve these problems. That is my FIRST preference on how to deal with these problems. BUT, if churches et al are not stepping up to solve the problems sufficiently, I have no problem with gov’t making reasonable attempts to do so. In fact, I expect it/demand it. The point is, it’s wrong to let these problems fester.
I’d rather see someone – church or gov’t or other – make SOME effort, even if it’s flawed, than to make no effort at all. With the caveat that, when there are efforts that aren’t working, they stop and re-evaluate and learn from their mistakes and move on.
Can you agree with me on that point?
You said…
The best solutions come when people who feel invested in an outcome take action themselves. This is why private entities, like NGOs, businesses, and churches can deliver results
Agreed. But people invested in the outcome could very well be gov’t workers. No doubt there are many involved in civil service exactly because they are invested in improving the world. Additionally, much of public moneys goes to assist in the form of grants that go to non-profits and local agencies, so there again, you have people invested in making things better. People like my wife and many of my friends who work in Christian homeless agencies or agencies to help addicted veterans or to help the “hard core” homeless men (mostly) who “sleep out…” Some of “gov’t help” is funneled through agencies like these. Does that seem a reasonable approach to dealing with these problems to you? If not, where is the problem?
CG…
Simply put, there are too many rights today, and it is undoing civilization.
I guess I’d have to know what you mean by this, it doesn’t sound right. If we are protecting legitimate rights/needs – life, air, water, health, human dignity and rights, etc – I see no way that this can do anything but help civilization. Now, if you mean the “right” to drive any cars you might want or the “right” to make as much money as possible or spend it in anyway possible, or other “rights” that might cause harm to others, yes, I could agree that those sorts of “rights” are not helpful to civilization.
So, I could agree with that, depending on what you mean by it.
Thanks for the thoughts and conversation,
Dan
Terrance, I’ve refuted your arguments over and over again. And yet you somehow incredulously blame liberalism for young black americans getting abortions? They get abortions because of poor social circumstances. And liberal programs are not the reason for those poor social circumstances. That’s an inference you’ve made with little facts to back it up. The facts that you posted were right… blacks have higher poverty rates, crime rates, etc. But where your argument fails is when you blame dependance on welfare for those issues, because that’s where the facts stopped and personal opinions came in.There’s a whole host of reasons those circumstances exist, and yes, dependance is a part of those reasons for some individuals. But to say that dependance on welfare is the reason why ALL black americans are struggling is racist, hence why I’ve brought up that allegation so many times. Any generalization for any group of people is bound to be wrong, because issues such as this have a lot of components causing them. That’s why I’ve stated REPEATEDLY that there are MANY reasons why the abortion rates are so much higher for black americans. To say that one issue, dependance on welfare, is the main reason is an over-generalization and incredibly simplistic.
http://gawker.com/a-letter-from-ray-jasper-who-is-about-to-be-executed-1536073598
That’s a letter from Ray Jasper ^. It deals primarily with the issue of the death penalty, but the passage I want to point out the fourth page, where he talks about the identity crisis that’s plaguing young black Americans right now, and how he draws a distinction between that and the high prison rates.
http://www2.crcna.org/pages/sea_cycleofpoverty.cfm
That’s a small webpage explaining the cycle of poverty ^ (It also is an advertisement for a business trying to break it, but the explanation is why i linked it). I’m sure you already know about the cycle, but this is another great reason why the poor socio-economic circumstances continue to exist. It’s not just because of welfare programs teaching blacks that it’s okay to live near poverty, it’s because many are born into a system where they’re ALREADY impoverished. And it’s not because they’re parents sit on their asses all day collecting welfare either. It’s because a lot of them only have a single mother, (85% of poverty stricken blacks only have a single mother), and it doesn’t matter how hard that mother works, if she has more than one kid chances are they’re going to be in poverty. It’s not that the mother is lazy and collects welfare, it’s that the welfare is the only thing keeping their heads above water.
So yes, some blacks abuse the welfare system. But to say that all young black americans living in poor socio-economic circumstances do is false. There are several factors leading up to those poor circumstances, and to blame singularly liberal welfare programs is simplistic and crude.
If we can agree that there are a host of reasons leading to poor socio-economic circumstances, (one of them being reliance on the welfare system, but others being lack of social identity and a cycle of poverty, among other’s), than I believe we’ve found common ground. If not, I really don’t know what else to say to someone who believes that there’s only one chief reason why young blacks have it so hard in life.
No, you haven’t.
No. I blame liberalism for their declining socioeconomic status which, according to YOU, leads to abortion.
I agree, for the most part.
Yes, yes they are. John has already shown that welfare programs has WORSENED their socioeconomic status over the years.
Um, I cited John, actually. Are you having trouble following along again?
Not really, no. Like I said, I cited John.
No, it isn’t racist.
I also said that dependance on welfare has stripped African-Americans of their work ethic and motivation – at least most of the young ones. And it’s not simplistic when one can actually show a correlation between increased welfare and decreased socioeconomic status.
And why? Because their parents were brought up in the same system.
Yes. Along with declining socioeconomic status, we see an increase in fatherless homes since the advent of Johnson’s Great Society.
I agree there are many reasons for their poor socioeconomic status. But guess what? They all lead back to one thing: welfare.
No, they all lead back to the fact that the black community was traditionally marginalized by society and never recovered. The reason behind why they haven’t recovered is NOT because welfare has told them that they don’t need to. It’s because many impoverished homes are simply caught in the cycle and the black community suffers from lack of positive identity. I don’t know how you’re making that connection other than “Citing John”, who simply showed that welfare programs were introduced but didn’t help lift up young black americans out of poverty. He then made the incorrect correlation that because the welfare programs didn’t work out as expected, they ended up having the opposite effect of worsening the socio-economic situation. THAT’S where you argument fell. You fail to show how welfare solely led to all the poor circumstances that the black community face today.
Here’s the argument I’m hearing:
Welfare was introduced to help lift blacks up, instead blacks used it so that they didn’t have to work and that’s why they have such negative statistics today
Here’s the reality:
Welfare was introduced to lift blacks up, it wasn’t enough to lift them out of the poor situations they were in, and the natural process of the cycle of poverty as well as lack of cultural identity made it worse, which is the real reason why the black community has such negative statistics today.
Do I really need to educate one of the authors of “sifting reality” on how to actually “sift reality”?
And they weren’t marginalized in the 30s, 40s, and 50s?
Yep. More left-wing platitudes…And of course you’re not perceptive enough to realize that the black culture didn’t suffer from this problem until Johnson’s Great Society.
Um, no. The argument didn’t fail. Fact is, blacks did better in the 30s, 40s, and 50s and discrimination was as bad, if not worse. So, obviously “institutionalized racism” fails.
No, it wasn’t. Blacks were doing just fine before it.
You little child, you couldn’t educate me on your best day. You prove with each reply just how little you understand. Why don’t you get that little Chinese girl to write your replies for you? She’d be better than you, I assume.
Dan,
By too many rights I mean for example, the legislated right in California for indivudal K-12 students to choose their own gender and use the corresponding bathroom, without regard to the privacy and concerns of the large body of affected students. I don’t understand where such a right is derived from. A law is contingent and not necessary to human happiness. A right is intended to be an inviolable thing. What the California legislature passed is absurd and impractical, and any benefit of moral support to children alleged to be oppressed by the prior legal order is undone by the deprivation of privacy and distressed rendered to vulnerable, impressionable minors. Nothing seems inviolable about the legislated state of affairs, but friendly onlookers call them just that. It’s Orwellian abuse of language, and few things seem more disturbing than the twisting of words to obfuscate reality.
Let me repeat to you the reality. I’m afraid that old age might have affected your hearing, I know it’s affected your judgement. But older white conservative men typically have lost at the social politics through history. I can’t blame you for following the in the footsteps of your forefathers.
“Here’s the reality:
Welfare was introduced to lift blacks up, it wasn’t enough to lift them out of the poor situations they were in, and the natural process of the cycle of poverty as well as lack of cultural identity made it worse, which is the real reason why the black community has such negative statistics today.”
Blacks were not doing “just fine” in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. In comparison to whites, they were still struggling. It’s true, they’re worse off now in a lot of ways. But you still have not proven why it was welfares sole fault for that. You say it made them not have any personal accountability, but I see no evidence for this. What I do see evidence for, and what I’ve provided links for, are reasonable explanations involving cycles of poverty, lack of cultural identity, and an epidemic of broken family structures. Try to follow the statistics next time, eh?
And keep calling me a child in order to discredit my arguments, Ad Hominem attacks are a good look on you, although I have to say, I’m a bit disappointed in HOW MANY logical fallacies you seem determined to fit into your writings.
“I backed this argument up with statistics saying that blacks have higher prison rates, higher drug usage rates, higher crime rates…”
Kinda sounds to me like a bad moral compass.
“… and higher poverty rates.”
Kinda sounds to me like the result of a bad moral compass.
I’m 28, bryce.
Oh, good. I’ve been waiting to introduce you two.
This argument is absurd, bryce. Look at the facts. The out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks is 73%! That’s three times higher than before Johnson’s Great Society. And don’t ignore this point, as the single-parent home is the biggest indicator of poverty among families. Only 6% of all married couples are poor, while nearly 40% of single-parent homes are poor. And certainly the welfare system destroyed the black family. Now you have nearly 12 million blacks currently living in poverty – and I mean abject, government-dependent poverty. That accounts for nearly 25% of the their total population. Prior to the Great Society, the poverty rate among blacks fell by half between 1940 and 1960, and black women in this time were more likely to be married than white women! A study by the CATO Institute explains the significance:
“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits…But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences … she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy…. Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.”
Hell, even President Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for Domestic Affairs, William Galston, claims that the welfare system is responsible for AT LEAST 15% to 20% of family breakups in the United States. It wasn’t until the War On Poverty that the black family began to break down. [2]
Professor Walter E. Williams says, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell agrees, “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.” [3]
Another study by the Heritage Foundation: “The necessity of phasing out [welfare] benefits as incomes rise brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.”[4]
I argued the exact same thing and was accused of being a racist…
Representative Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) said, “I once had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care. I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing Medicaid.” [5] By the way, that link is to a government report entitled: “HOW WELFARE AND TAX BENEFITS CAN DISCOURAGE WORK.”
I guess the government is racist, ‘eh bryce? I guess Gwen Moore – A BLACK WOMAN – is racist, ‘eh bryce?
They were doing “just fine” and “amazing” compared to today – and THAT is my point.
Yes, they are.
You see a clear relationship between the two.
Maybe you should heed your own advice, child, and follow the statistics. Educate yourself, bryce, and break the stranglehold that left-wing ideology has on your mind. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you have to be a liberal loon.
https://siftingreality.com/2013/08/08/the-insanity-of-the-war-on-poverty/
Correlation does not equal causation.
I made my argument, Dan. I suggest it is the cause and I’ve given my reasons. Do you have another opinion? No? Oh, okay then.
When correlation begins exactly when the policy enacts and the trend trajectory reverses, yes, its causation.
By that reasoning, one could say, “We were an abundantly more religious nation back when slavery and overt racism was much more abundant. Therefore, religion causes slavery and racial hatred.”
Easy, no reason to dig for real truths. Just find a correlation and make it a causation.
IF that were rational.
But it isn’t.
~Dan
I’ve offered my reasonable opinion: People of all races have abortions for a great variety of reasons. Prove that wrong.
As to the numbers of a particular race in poverty, I’ve also offered my reasons: There are a wide variety of reasons people end up in poverty.
Prove that wrong.
Or, admit the simple elegant rationality of it.
~Dan
There is nothing elegant you said. Your reasoning is a tautology. People have abortion for different reasons therefore there are different reasons people have abortions.
The question is why among a particular demographic is is so much higher even when you factor in the same conditions among other demographics.
And I repeat: For a wide variety of reasons.
But even to the degree that there’s an element of truth – a percentage of truth in your argument, we can also return to this point: IF churches/non-profits/individuals had stepped up and resolved the issues of poverty amongst all groups – including poor black folk – then the state would not have felt rightly compelled to give it a try themselves.
TODAY, if churches, etc just step up and solve the problem, they/you/I can put the state out of the welfare business.
So, who’s to blame for you all not stepping up to sufficiently meet the needs in the first place?
Or, is it more reasonable to – instead of trying to point fingers and blame – say that “fixing” poverty is a difficult proposal and we – none of us – have totally successfully done so because it IS difficult?
And tell me this, John: Which is worst? For a state or a people to try to resolve poverty-related problems and fail to some degree or to do nothing about it?
As I always say, I FULLY support churches to start stepping up and working to end poverty in generally positive ways, here and abroad. But until such time as the private sector is doing so, I don’t hold much countenance to simple finger pointing.
Blaming is easy. Doing the work to resolve problems is more difficult.
~Dan
Dan.
Youre excoriating me for asking a question. The legitimate question is why black mothers abort at such higher rates than any other group, even when poverty and location ate taken into consideration. You responded with sarcasm initially, then insinuated racism.
Why cant you just deal with a real problem.
You haven’t offered a “reasonable opinion” that’s consistent with the facts. And actually, your “reasonable opinion” rested on the assumption that blacks are better off today than in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, which statistics prove isn’t the case.
So much for your “reasonable opinion.”
John,
Because dealing with real problems is hard. Sometimes it requires that someone actually put aside their preconceptions of others, and deal with reality. It’s much easier to just criticize or dismiss others.
Correlation does not equal causation is essentially what I’ve been getting at this entire time. You’re trying to blame welfare for making it worse because it was instituted and things got worse, but there’s much easier explanations which you all have ignored throughout this entire exchange. Cycles of poverty took an already bad situation and made it worse. (And no, things were not peachy for blacks in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. The statistics were better but they were still lagging behind whites). Lack of cultural identity helped cause a breakdown of family structure and that also leads to the reasons why blacks have such higher abortion rates.
There are SEVERAL reasons why blacks have such negative statistics today, but to claim that welfare is the only one which had a big impact is absurd. The reasons why those statistics exist today, and the reasons they have it so much worse off, are varied.
Correlation doesnt equal causation in all cases, but often it does. When there is immediate correlation that results in a dramatic turn or reversal of state of affairs, its safe to say its causation.
All,
I think it suffices to say that the implementation of welfare state policy has been one, if not the only, factor corresponding to the socioeconomic decline of the African American community as a whole. To dismiss the explanation that some welfare state policies erode–abstractly and at large–incentives to find work or get married contradicts neoclassical economic theory that people are, either consciously or unconsciously, agents who pursue rational self interest when it comes to maximizing their utility.
The US Supreme Court this month is looking at “disperate impact” in Michigan’s college admissions affirmative action ban. The black community at large is situated under a number of compounding factors, including social policies that disincentivize the adoption of helpful normative behaviors. If disperate impact is a reality, certainly eliminating disincentivizing policies should be looked at as a way to ease the burden on the minoirty community as a whole. Because disincentivizing policies are harmful policies. Humans are made to act on incentives, and to tip toe around that is to implicitly undermine human dignity. Or as GW Bush said, it is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Nobody is saying that the welfare system hasn’t been abused and that it hasn’t played a part. It has. But there are also SEVERAL reasons. Another great explanation is the cycle of poverty. It makes sense that a culture which was already behind fell more and more behind with each generation. That’s not just a correlation, it’s a sociological fact. The broken family system can also be explained using this explanation, as well as using the explanation of lack of positive cultural identity.
To ignore all other causations is ludicrous. The welfare system needs to be reformed, it has plenty of problems, but it isn’t the sole reason to blame for the circumstances young black americans face. I’ve cited several others throughout this argument, all of which have been ignored in favor of people’s own biased politcs.
Like John said, the results were immediate. Plus, the words of personal experience from people like Gwen Moore also indicate causation.
Tautology. Nothing but tautology, just like Dan. This has been refuted time and time again.
And curiously you’ve listed none of them.
No, it isn’t.
Meaningless noise.
Bryce, I agree that cycle of poverty is a good sociological explanation. Particular deincentivizing welfare programs are another explanation at the conjunction of economics and political history. Of course causes in the social sciences are manifold. I don’t know if anyone here has out right denied this?
CG…
Humans are made to act on incentives, and to tip toe around that is to implicitly undermine human dignity.
I think a more apt way of stating this is that, for some people, if they lack the right incentives, they may choose not to strive. The problem is the general sweeping of all causes and all people into one big pile. For many people – most of us in my experience, but maybe that’s just me – we are motivated by the desire to do good work. Doing good work is, itself, an incentive. Doing good work and the challenge of doing it well is yet another incentive. Doing good, challenging work that makes a positive difference and doing that well is yet another incentive.
For others of us (in my experience in dealing with regular folk from a swath of humanity, especially in the lower socioeconomic levels), IF we had someone willing to pay for us to do nothing, we’d take them up on it. But, again in my experience, this number is low. I would hate nothing more than have somebody pay me to do nothing. I don’t like doing nothing. I don’t like the idea of someone paying me to do nothing. The notion bristles against my very humanity. I don’t think I’m alone in this.
So, the thing that we have to do, individually and societally, is find ways that best help us all to maximize our human capacities to be and do good work. We can’t generalize and say, “If we offer 1,000 people temporary assistance due to financial struggles, they all (or most) will become dependent on it…” That would be a mistake, to assume that, given the chance, poor people (or black people or any people) would choose to “accept welfare” for life, that is, itself, a soft bigotry of low expectations. We should, however, recognize that, for at least some people, there is the risk of becoming dependent and adapt to still help those who need it temporarily yet find wiser ways of dealing with the (few, in my estimation) who’d take advantage of or become “addicted to” “free help…”
Let me ask you all: Is there a single one amongst you who’d gladly take “welfare” and do no work for the rest of your lives if you had that option? It’s certainly not true for me and my poor friends (with a few exceptions – and most of those most likely related to mental disorders), and I have to believe that you all would not choose to do so, either. But you tell me.
~Dan
John…
When there is immediate correlation that results in a dramatic turn or reversal of state of affairs, its safe to say its causation.
No, it’s not. It’s simple and shallow to say, “Hey, I noticed that these things happened at the same time, therefore, there MUST be causation…”
For one thing, there were all sorts of things happening at the same time. For one thing, the “war on drugs” began roughly at the same time. And because of the racism of the day, even though blacks and whites abused drugs at the same rate, roughly, black folk – black men – went to jail with much greater frequency than white men. Having a significant portion of your male population can also hurt family life, you know.
The “sexual revolution” was happening at the same time. The Viet Nam War was going on, which disproportionately took away young black men from their communities. If we want to be simple minded and shallow about looking at a problem, then sure, we can find one action we don’t like and blame all negative events that occurred at the same time on that one action. But, I don’t believe any of us want to be simple minded or shallow in our research or consideration.
Agreed?
I maintain that it is obvious that statistics about black folk being in poverty at higher rates and black families having abortion in higher rates are for a variety of reasons and reasonable adults would want to take into consideration all factors, not just knee jerk react against one.
~Dan
The war on drugs didnt start until Reagan, the war on poverty and welfare started long before, jackass.
:)
The War on Drugs began with the Johnson administration in the late 1960s and was increased by Nixon beginning in 1971 and greatly increased by Reagan, but not begun by him.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/
Peace.
I repeat, to ignore all other causations is ludicrous. There are many sociological explanations as well, and to simply say it was because they all decided to rely on welfare is extremely crude.
Peace.
You haven’t offered anything outside of “cycle of poverty,” which is utter nonsense. Fact is, studies flat-out prove that welfare prolongs poverty.
Care to explain the nonsense behind a sociologically proven fact?
I know big words scare you.
Sweeping generalizations are in the eye of the beholder.
When the intent of statements is uncertain, practice charity in interpretation. To just take a proposition as a stereotype or judgment evokes the hermeneutics of suspicion. This is what axe grinding academics advocate in their uncritical crusade against oppression. It’s blind and commits the very offense they supposedly oppose. So let’s avoid generalizing about generalizations.
bryce,
“Cycle of Poverty” merely describes what we’ve all been talking about, so I don’t know why you mentioned it. It doesn’t address the reason blacks are so poor (not just poor, but doing worse). It’s not a cause in and of itself, which is what you seem to be saying. The “Cycle of Poverty” can be caused by many things, including that which myself, John, and Marshall mentioned. It merely describes a fundamental truth: grow up in poverty and you’re likely to stay in it.