T Nation

Abortion Kills Mostly Blacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

That’s one of the reasons Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood: to practice “race hygeine.”

[quote]pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

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

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

[/quote]

Ask Margaret Sanger.

Even it was made into just a “socio-economic issue,” it would still be a race issue because the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go, the more blacks and hispanics you will find.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

Ask Margaret Sanger.

Even it was made into just a “socio-economic issue,” it would still be a race issue because the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go, the more blacks and hispanics you will find. [/quote]

Which still makes social status and finances the issue not RACE.

Why would I need to care about Sanger to realize this?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

Ask Margaret Sanger.

Even it was made into just a “socio-economic issue,” it would still be a race issue because the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go, the more blacks and hispanics you will find.

Which still makes social status and finances the issue not RACE.
[/quote]

Well, I guess your argument ought to be with the researchers who did this study then. I’m sure you can dig up their email addresses and give them flak for pointing out the racial trends in abortion. While you’re at it, I would be grateful if you waged a similar campaign against affirmative action proponents.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

Ask Margaret Sanger.

Even it was made into just a “socio-economic issue,” it would still be a race issue because the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go, the more blacks and hispanics you will find.

Which still makes social status and finances the issue not RACE.

Well, I guess your argument ought to be with the researchers who did this study then. I’m sure you can dig up their email addresses and give them flak for pointing out the racial trends in abortion. While you’re at it, I would be grateful if you waged a similar campaign against affirmative action proponents. [/quote]

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

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

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

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

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

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

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

Ask Margaret Sanger.

Even it was made into just a “socio-economic issue,” it would still be a race issue because the lower down the socio-economic ladder you go, the more blacks and hispanics you will find.

Which still makes social status and finances the issue not RACE.

Why would I need to care about Sanger to realize this?[/quote]

Prof. X is exactly right here. It has nothing to do with race. Regardless of the skin color of the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder, the abortion rate will be higher. How many wealthy black women do you think are having abortions? I’d venture a guess that the majority of the white women having abortions are from lower-income backgrounds as well. It’s a fairly accurate claim that skin color has very little to do with abortion rates, and income level would be a much better correlation.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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

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

What do left wing policies have to do with more abortions happening in poorer areas? They can’t afford the kids and are least likely to avoid what led to the kid being made in the first place. You can blame education, social status and finances for that…but “left wing policies”? Are you serious?

In your mind, you can’t see the problem with what led to AA in the first damn place?

I am all for discussion as far as whether AA is needed right now. Many would argue on both sides that it is NOT. That doesn’t erase the fact that minorities are still grouped into huge negative boxes and stereotypes and this is somehow seen as normal. Anyone who questions it is labeled as “anti-science” as if being black or hispanic makes you have abortions.

I can’t believe some of you even believe this horse shit…and yes, that is coming from a scientist.

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

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

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

What do left wing policies have to do with more abortions happening in poorer areas? They can’t afford the kids and are least likely to avoid what led to the kid being made in the first place. You can blame education, social status and finances for that…but “left wing policies”? Are you serious?

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

In your mind, you can’t see the problem with what led to AA in the first damn place?

I am all for discussion as far as whether AA is needed right now. Many would argue on both sides that it is NOT. That doesn’t erase the fact that minorities are still grouped into huge negative boxes and stereotypes and this is somehow seen as normal. Anyone who questions it is labeled as “anti-science” as if being black or hispanic makes you have abortions.

I can’t believe some of you even believe this horse shit…and yes, that is coming from a scientist.[/quote]

I think the race issue only ties in when you talk about it as a form of eugenics. We were just talking about this in the other thread. Regardless of what is causing more African Americans to have abortions, many people view it as an acceptable way to slow the growth of selective population segments.

So political support and wider spread availability of abortion can be a race issue.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I think the race issue only ties in when you talk about it as a form of eugenics. We were just talking about this in the other thread. Regardless of what is causing more African Americans to have abortions, many people view it as an acceptable way to slow the growth of selective population segments.

So political support and wider spread availability of abortion can be a race issue.[/quote]

Gee, we used to call those people RACISTS.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I think the race issue only ties in when you talk about it as a form of eugenics. We were just talking about this in the other thread. Regardless of what is causing more African Americans to have abortions, many people view it as an acceptable way to slow the growth of selective population segments.

So political support and wider spread availability of abortion can be a race issue.

Gee, we used to call those people RACISTS.[/quote]

I still do, but that doesn?t make them not exist.

Of course I’m serious. The entire welfare state is set up around subsidizing irresponsible behavior, therefore we get more of it.

[quote]In your mind, you can’t see the problem with what led to AA in the first damn place?

I am all for discussion as far as whether AA is needed right now. Many would argue on both sides that it is NOT. That doesn’t erase the fact that minorities are still grouped into huge negative boxes and stereotypes and this is somehow seen as normal. Anyone who questions it is labeled as “anti-science” as if being black or hispanic makes you have abortions.

I can’t believe some of you even believe this horse shit…and yes, that is coming from a scientist. [/quote]

Manufactured outrage aside, I can’t even understand what you mean by, “Minorities are still being grouped into negative boxes.” If by that, you mean that there is a lot of inconvenient data surrounding blacks and hispanics in this country (i.e., illegitimacy, poverty, etc), then I heartily agree. You seem to be advocating researchers turn a blind eye to the race of these groups. Of course, demography and social science would be all but impossible if we were to follow your suggestion. That may be a good thing, though, because then the professional diversicrats and affirmative activists would have no data to use to promote their race-based guidelines. So I guess I could go along with you there.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I think the race issue only ties in when you talk about it as a form of eugenics. We were just talking about this in the other thread. Regardless of what is causing more African Americans to have abortions, many people view it as an acceptable way to slow the growth of selective population segments.

So political support and wider spread availability of abortion can be a race issue.

Gee, we used to call those people RACISTS.[/quote]

Well, the abortion industry is certainly working as designed in that regard, isn’t it?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Of course I’m serious. The entire welfare state is set up around subsidizing irresponsible behavior, therefore we get more of it. [/quote]

LOL!!

How is Welfare at fault for why Moesha or Juanita gets an abortion in the 11th grade?

Have you actually known anyone from the projects? Ever walked through one? For every fat mother sitting on her ass using her kids as her paycheck and government cheese coupon, there are 15 starving kids who are relying on their school lunch as their only meal that day as mom works 3 jobs.

Your view of that system is entirely too simplistic. I wish I could get my dad on line at least once in some of these debates. He worked most of his life helping those kids directly…not in theory.

[quote]
Manufactured outrage aside, I can’t even understand what you mean by, “Minorities are still being grouped into negative boxes.” [/quote]

The article this thread is based on just did it. The real problem is that you can’t see it and refuse to on top of it.

I see it just fine. My point is, the only way it will stop is banning social science, and the diversicrats and activists won’t like that very much b/c they will no longer have any data to use. Then there’s the pesky 1st amendment that allows researchers to do research like this. I think you just don’t like the data they’ve assembled. Too bad.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

The article this thread is based on just did it. The real problem is that you can’t see it and refuse to on top of it.

I see it just fine. My point is, the only way it will stop is banning social science, and the diversicrats and activists won’t like that very much b/c they will no longer have any data to use. Then there’s the pesky 1st amendment that allows researchers to do research like this. I think you just don’t like the data they’ve assembled. Too bad. [/quote]

Gee, OR they could stop using Race as some indicator of behavior and actually look at the issues that cause that behavior.

No girl I’ve slept with has gotten an abortion in relation to me. Clearly I need to act more like my race.

Guess the “War on Poverty” isn’t going so well.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

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

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

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

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

Not trying to make it a negative light. I want to save everyone of those babies…If I somehow could I would, but I can’t so I can raise awareness. As it is my belief that it hurts everyone.

About an hour after making this thread, I thought about it and regret making it actually as I figure it is overkill with this issue, but I cannot undo it now. I should have just attached the article to the FOCA thread really, because I do find it interesting. I find it interesting that Obama?s wholesale support for abortion in and out of the uterus is disproportionally hurting the black community in the end; yet he wants it to be a free-for-all, and I think he needs to change his mind on this if he really wants to help people.

I realize the shitstorm from combining both race and abortion in the same thread, time to put on the hard hat and hazmat suit.

Apologies to you Prof, I am not trying to hurt anyone?s feelings.