Abstinence 'is not realistic,' Palin's daughter says

[Ravi]

Of course, you realize that if you look in the footnotes of the link you provided that the racial demographics come from a very indirect method because the abortion industry WANTS to portray itself as eradicating poor minorities who shouldn't be breeding anyway.

And, I'm not even exaggerating here.

Can you expand on that?

If you read about the history of Margaret Sanger, her background was in eugenics. She had very strong feelings that some people should be permanently sterilized, and that others (particularly poor minorities) should not be having children.

The goal of opening abortion clinics, particularly in poor areas, was to stop population growth among certain segments of society.

And, even now, when you hear middle class white women talk about abortion, the issue will always come up of how it would be better for some fetuses to be aborted because their mother is poor (and the assumption goes without saying, minority) and probably would be a bad parent anywhere.

it's a very ugly and subtle sort of racism.

You hang around with some strange people.

 

[Ravi]

Both your links proved otherwise.

Wrong. Risk factors for gang membership, on page 4 of the publication I linked above, range from a 3.6 (most significant) to about a 1.2 in terms of impact. Single parent is specifically listed, and rates a 2.4. The risk increases to 3.0 if an additional adult lives with the family who is not related.

That's significant.

IN terms of comparison, parental attitudes that support anti-social behavior rates a 2.3.

So, here are the family risk factors for gang joining:

Family

One parent only 2.4
One parent plus other adults 3.0
Parental attitudes favoring violence 2.3
Low bonding with parents ns‡
Low household income 2.1
Sibling antisocial behavior 1.9
Poor family management 1.7

The numbers besides these factors are significant. What they mean is this:

Youth with one parent only were 2.4 TIMES more likely to join a gang than their peers with two parents. Youth with one parent PLUS other unrelated adults were 3 times more likely to join a gang. We're not talking 20% here, we are talking 200%. That's a huge margin.

If a youth has MORE risk factors, their odds of joining a gang (or engaging in related anti-social activity) increase exponentially:

As figure 5 shows, compared with no-risk youth, low-risk youth were 3 times more likely to join a gang, medium-risk youth were 5 times more likely to join, and highrisk youth were 13 times more likely to join. The more risk factors present in a youth’s life, the higher his or her odds of joining a gang.

The risk factors, by domain (individual, peer, community, school and family) are listed on page 4 of this publication.

I wish you'd read it, it would help you understand this subject better.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/190106.pdf

I glanced at it but it didn't give me any details of how they came up with their data, so it's pretty useless.

 

[Ravi]

anyone else find it interesting that a 17 year old girls statement would cause a 27 page thread?

She's 18, not 17. And no, I don't recognize any remarkable difference between her and anyone else commenting on the matter.

Quite frankly

Who gives a **** what this girl has to say...how empty are peoples lives that it needs a 27 page thread...

want the real life jist of it

Kids will either **** or they won't

end of discussion

Some wait till they are married which is the minoirty and some start fuckin as soon as they can.

move on next topic

And yet here you are.

 

[catzmeow]

You hang around with some strange people.

Only on here. Reference Eel's posts.

 

[catzmeow]

I glanced at it but it didn't give me any details of how they came up with their data, so it's pretty useless.

Perhaps you should have glanced at the footnotes. There was an explanation of how these risk factors were obtained. Furthermore, the entire publication repeatedly references this:

SSDP Homepage

Sometimes, I think you prefer to NOT have information you request.

 

[Ravi]

You hang around with some strange people.

Only on here. Reference Eel's posts.

Eel said that minorities should be exterminated via abortion? No way.

 

[catzmeow]

Eel said that minorities should be exterminated via abortion? No way.

Eel implied that poverty = child abuse.

 

[Ravi]

I glanced at it but it didn't give me any details of how they came up with their data, so it's pretty useless.

Perhaps you should have glanced at the footnotes. There was an explanation of how these risk factors were obtained. Furthermore, the entire publication repeatedly references this:

SSDP Homepage

Sometimes, I think you prefer to NOT have information you request.

I did look. Their factors don't convince me. For instance, someone that lives in a neighborhood where weed is available is a 3.6...but where exactly are these neighborhoods where weed isn't available? Also, in the group of kids they've studied, how prevalent are gangs in their neighborhoods and how does that factor into the equation? In the single parent homes, what is the relationship with the other parent and how does that factor into the equation? I know quite a few single parent households and none of them have kids in gangs. I understand that it is harder to raise kids in single family homes, but it is probably even harder to raise them in homes where one or more of the parents is physically or verbally abusive...and THAT information is totally absent from their chart.

 

[catzmeow]

I did look. Their factors don't convince me. For instance, someone that lives in a neighborhood where weed is available is a 3.6...but where exactly are these neighborhoods where weed isn't available? Also, in the group of kids they've studied, how prevalent are gangs in their neighborhoods and how does that factor into the equation? In the single parent homes, what is the relationship with the other parent and how does that factor into the equation? I know quite a few single parent households and none of them have kids in gangs. I understand that it is harder to raise kids in single family homes, but it is probably even harder to raise them in homes where one or more of the parents is physically or verbally abusive...and THAT information is totally absent from their chart.

This data is based upon two-decades worth of developmental studies in Rochester, NY, Seattle, WA, and several other areas. The data compares youth who joined gangs with youth from the same areas who did not.

Prevalence of gangs IS a risk factor that occurred in other studies.

Of course you know plenty of single parent families where kids aren't in gangs. Do you understand that multiple risk factors increase risk of gang joining? And, in dozens of studies, researchers have found that kids do better in homes with two parents unless there is a CRITICAL LEVEL of conflict and physical violence.

Do you get that I am not trying to beat up single parents, because I AM ONE. I'm just giving you data that has been correlated in multiple studies. Coming from a single parent home is a risk factor for a number of anti-social behaviors by young people. It isn't the ONLY risk factor, or even the most important one, but it is significant.

Why are you so determined to prove that it isn't? These are scientifically validated studies that have been buttressed by years of research.

If a kid comes from a single parent home, it increases his or her risk. However, that doesn't mean that this risk can't be mitigated by actions taken by the parent (in fact, above, i gave examples of protective factors that counter this risk factor).

I think you think I'm saying something I'm not. I don't blame single parents for all the ills of society. I'm just saying that we need to be aware it is a factor. It isn't the ONLY factor, but it is a factor.

 

[Ravi]

btw, Kitty, I was driving along the other day and I noticed that most of the cars on the road were either white, red, or black. I imagine if we asked, we could find out what car color can predict about future gang membership. And that would be just as valid a predictor as single-parenthood.

A lot of studies are done with good intentions but their conclusions are faulty.

 

[catzmeow]

A lot of studies are done with good intentions but their conclusions are faulty.

The data on risk factors is amongst the most scientifically rigorous social science data that exists. I'm sorry that you aren't familiar with it, but it is used across the board by professionals from the fields of criminal justice, education, and social services to address youth social deficits.

 

[Ravi]

I did look. Their factors don't convince me. For instance, someone that lives in a neighborhood where weed is available is a 3.6...but where exactly are these neighborhoods where weed isn't available? Also, in the group of kids they've studied, how prevalent are gangs in their neighborhoods and how does that factor into the equation? In the single parent homes, what is the relationship with the other parent and how does that factor into the equation? I know quite a few single parent households and none of them have kids in gangs. I understand that it is harder to raise kids in single family homes, but it is probably even harder to raise them in homes where one or more of the parents is physically or verbally abusive...and THAT information is totally absent from their chart.

This data is based upon two-decades worth of developmental studies in Rochester, NY, Seattle, WA, and several other areas. The data compares youth who joined gangs with youth from the same areas who did not.

Prevalence of gangs IS a risk factor that occurred in other studies.

Of course you know plenty of single parent families where kids aren't in gangs. Do you understand that multiple risk factors increase risk of gang joining? And, in dozens of studies, researchers have found that kids do better in homes with two parents unless there is a CRITICAL LEVEL of conflict and physical violence.

Do you get that I am not trying to beat up single parents, because I AM ONE. I'm just giving you data that has been correlated in multiple studies. Coming from a single parent home is a risk factor for a number of anti-social behaviors by young people. It isn't the ONLY risk factor, or even the most important one, but it is significant.

Why are you so determined to prove that it isn't? These are scientifically validated studies that have been buttressed by years of research.

If a kid comes from a single parent home, it increases his or her risk. However, that doesn't mean that this risk can't be mitigated by actions taken by the parent (in fact, above, i gave examples of protective factors that counter this risk factor).

I think you think I'm saying something I'm not. I don't blame single parents for all the ills of society. I'm just saying that we need to be aware it is a factor. It isn't the ONLY factor, but it is a factor.

I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would imagine verbally or physically abusive parents would be the number one reason why kids go wrong. And this study didn't even account for that. Why?

 

[catzmeow]

I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would imagine verbally or physically abusive parents would be the number one reason why kids go wrong. And this study didn't even account for that. Why?

It isn't that the study didn't account for it. It is that in measuring kids who joined gangs and kids who didn't, verbally or physically abusive parents were not as statistically significant as other factors.

For whatever reasons, while those may be negative factors in kids' lives, it did not play a heavy role in gang joining.

Of course, in other studies, family violence (not necessarily directed AT the kids) has been shown to play a role, as well as parent values that are pro-violence. High levels of family conflict also play a role. But, statistically speaking, they do not seem to play a more significant role than an absent parent.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but the research on this one is actually fairly clear over multiple studies.

The factors that were mentioned in the article I linked were those that were found to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT in gang joining. There is no doubt that family violence is bad, but apparently, it does not influence gang joining as much as outsiders might imagine it does.

Part of it is probably that, for kids who grow up in a violent family, some degree of violence is NORMAL, to that kid, and doesn't even necessarily interfere with having a positive relationship with their parent.

I've known plenty of kids who grew up in violent homes, but with gang members, at least, I didn't see that their homes were any more violent than those of the kids they went to school with that DIDN'T join gangs.

Also, one other factor may be that family violence is much less prevalent than some of us imagine.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would imagine verbally or physically abusive parents would be the number one reason why kids go wrong. And this study didn't even account for that. Why?

It isn't that the study didn't account for it. It is that in measuring kids who joined gangs and kids who didn't, verbally or physically abusive parents were not as statistically significant as other factors.

For whatever reasons, while those may be negative factors in kids' lives, it did not play a heavy role in gang joining.

Of course, in other studies, family violence (not necessarily directed AT the kids) has been shown to play a role, as well as parent values that are pro-violence. High levels of family conflict also play a role. But, statistically speaking, they do not seem to play a more significant role than an absent parent.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but the research on this one is actually fairly clear over multiple studies.

The factors that were mentioned in the article I linked were those that were found to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT in gang joining. There is no doubt that family violence is bad, but apparently, it does not influence gang joining as much as outsiders might imagine it does.

Part of it is probably that, for kids who grow up in a violent family, some degree of violence is NORMAL, to that kid, and doesn't even necessarily interfere with having a positive relationship with their parent.

I've known plenty of kids who grew up in violent homes, but with gang members, at least, I didn't see that their homes were any more violent than those of the kids they went to school with that DIDN'T join gangs.

Also, one other factor may be that family violence is much less prevalent than some of us imagine.

You're really making me laugh now. How would you, or they, know if it was statistically important if they never even asked the question???

And I'm actually rolling on the floor over your comment that kids that grow up with it see physical and verbal abuse as normal. That would hold true in a closed society with no interactions, but I bet most American kids somehow know getting their bones broken by mommy or daddy isn't the way things are supposed to be.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I bet Alaska is just as bad as Kansas was for being a boring place to grow up. But seriously if you're going to do it you both need to be taking measures to prevent pregnancy... unless of course you want to have a baby.

She said the choice to get pregnant was hers. So I have to believe she intended to do it.

Sounds like it to me.

 

[AllieBaba]

Can you expand on that?

If you read about the history of Margaret Sanger, her background was in eugenics. She had very strong feelings that some people should be permanently sterilized, and that others (particularly poor minorities) should not be having children.

The goal of opening abortion clinics, particularly in poor areas, was to stop population growth among certain segments of society.

And, even now, when you hear middle class white women talk about abortion, the issue will always come up of how it would be better for some fetuses to be aborted because their mother is poor (and the assumption goes without saying, minority) and probably would be a bad parent anywhere.

it's a very ugly and subtle sort of racism.

You hang around with some strange people.

And you're a disingenuos turd. You've read all the Margaret Sanger shit, your stupid act only works for about a year. Well it's been over a year. We all know you aren't that stupid, and you just pretend you're stupid so you can avoid actually admitting to your beliefs.

You agree with Sanger, and you agree that eugenics is AOK. You defend a police state and don't think all people deserve due process, or even a fair trial before breaking their doors down and dispersing their families to the wind. You prove you believe these things in here all the time, with your smug little comments about how certain people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and abortion is the thinking man's solution to poverty and abuse, and it's okay to arrest and separate families, perform gynocological exams on them, if they happen to belong to a religious group.

While at the same time, if they're getting abortions, you could give a shit about them and don't want anything done about the situation which landed them in the clinics, no matter how young they are.

You're like the 40 year old woman who teases her hair and talks baby talk because she thinks it endears her to men....but keeps her retarded daughter chained up in a closet.

 

[Ravi]

If you read about the history of Margaret Sanger, her background was in eugenics. She had very strong feelings that some people should be permanently sterilized, and that others (particularly poor minorities) should not be having children.

The goal of opening abortion clinics, particularly in poor areas, was to stop population growth among certain segments of society.

And, even now, when you hear middle class white women talk about abortion, the issue will always come up of how it would be better for some fetuses to be aborted because their mother is poor (and the assumption goes without saying, minority) and probably would be a bad parent anywhere.

it's a very ugly and subtle sort of racism.

You hang around with some strange people.

And you're a disingenuos turd. You've read all the Margaret Sanger shit, your stupid act only works for about a year. Well it's been over a year. We all know you aren't that stupid, and you just pretend you're stupid so you can avoid actually admitting to your beliefs.

You agree with Sanger, and you agree that eugenics is AOK. You defend a police state and don't think all people deserve due process, or even a fair trial before breaking their doors down and dispersing their families to the wind. You prove you believe these things in here all the time, with your smug little comments about how certain people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and abortion is the thinking man's solution to poverty and abuse, and it's okay to arrest and separate families, perform gynocological exams on them, if they happen to belong to a religious group.

While at the same time, if they're getting abortions, you could give a shit about them and don't want anything done about the situation which landed them in the clinics, no matter how young they are.

You're like the 40 year old woman who teases her hair and talks baby talk because she thinks it endears her to men....but keeps her retarded daughter chained up in a closet.

Allie, I don't agree with her and I have never met anyone that has. That you keep pretending over and over that people do is either a lie on your part or a severe reaction to your continual brainwashing. In fact, the only person who ever said anything remotely like that was one of your talking heads that claimed crime would drop if black babies were aborted. I've never once said that certain people shouldn't be allowed to breed or any of the other things you are raving about. If you want to know what I think, ask me, and quit pretending you know.

 

[Ravi]

Also, Kitty, your study included this information:

The Seattle Social Development
Project is a longitudinal study of
youth living in high-crime neighborhoods.
The study is designed to
enhance our understanding of the
predictors of gang participation.

Which makes me wonder...how many families in the study are single-parent and how many are two-parent. High crime neighborhoods tend to have more single-parent households so the answer to that question could make even their correlation incorrect.

 

[BrianH]

Abstinence 'is not realistic,' Palin's daughter says
Posted: 10:43 AM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart


Palin says she and Johnston still plan to wed.
(CNN) – In her first interview since giving birth to son Tripp, Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said it’s not “realistic” to expect abstinence outside of marriage.

Watch: Bristol Palin breaks her silence

“Everyone should be abstinent . . . but it’s not realistic at all,” the 18-year-old told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, adding that having sex as a teenager had become “more and more accepted now” among people her age.

The new mother, who gave birth to Gov. Palin’s first grandchild late last year, said her decision to go forward with an unplanned pregnancy was entirely her own.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Abstinence ‘is not realistic,’ Palin’s daughter says « - Blogs from CNN.com

"And tune in next week for the hit reality TV show, Bristol and Family, where Bristol Palin address the economic stimulus bill as well as the war on Iraq and Afghanistan."

Who the hell cares what Bristol Palin thinks about being a mother...? When was the last time they interviewed a disadvantaged woman with a bunch of kids who lives on welfare? Oh wait, that was last week.... Damn...

 

[Ravi]

Abstinence 'is not realistic,' Palin's daughter says
Posted: 10:43 AM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart


Palin says she and Johnston still plan to wed.
(CNN) – In her first interview since giving birth to son Tripp, Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said it’s not “realistic” to expect abstinence outside of marriage.

Watch: Bristol Palin breaks her silence

“Everyone should be abstinent . . . but it’s not realistic at all,” the 18-year-old told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, adding that having sex as a teenager had become “more and more accepted now” among people her age.

The new mother, who gave birth to Gov. Palin’s first grandchild late last year, said her decision to go forward with an unplanned pregnancy was entirely her own.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Abstinence ‘is not realistic,’ Palin’s daughter says « - Blogs from CNN.com

"And tune in next week for the hit reality TV show, Bristol and Family, where Bristol Palin address the economic stimulus bill as well as the war on Iraq and Afghanistan."

Who the hell cares what Bristol Palin thinks about being a mother...? When was the last time they interviewed a disadvantaged woman with a bunch of kids who lives on welfare? Oh wait, that was last week.... Damn...

Maybe she can write a book like Joe the Plumber and influence stupid people everywhere.