Millions of black babies have been aborted in my lifetime, been the Democrats pushing for abortion, why do blacks on this board hate Republicans?

[Blues Man]

Aborted black babies-can we change the statistics? - Anglicans For Life

One simple way to decrease the number of aborted black babies could be as simple as listening to the stories of our African-American friends.

anglicansforlife.org

This is one of the reasons why the black population is only around 15% and will always be a minority, thus keeping White Democrats in power, who follow their ancestors footsteps of the Democrats of the South.

Black Population by State 2024

Republicans have been wanting to allow babies their chance in this world, because we just dont know which one, could of invented "warp speed", or the cure for cancer, but we will never know.

Why Republicans Talk about Abortion and Democrats Don’t | National Review

The Republican convention featured a speech attacking unlimited legal abortion, while last week Democrats ignored the issue entirely.

www.nationalreview.com

Now the argument of the progressives(recessives) is that if those black babies are allowed to be born, then they will starve, because Republicans dont want to take care of other people's children. My answer to that argument is the Progs "think" that black people are too stupid to take care of their own children, and if that isnt racist to the core, i dont know what is? Are black people too stupid to take care of their own children?

Would like to hear from the blacks who frequent this board and get their opinion on the progs?

No one is forcing Black women to have abortions.

Maybe Black men who father these children but don't support them should share in the blame.

 

[JoeB131]

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...

This is where you get confused, buddy.

Back in the 1970's, you had abortion laws on the books that were routinely and largely ignored by women and their doctors, to the point where they were meaningless. Police didn't investigate, prosecutors didn't bring charges, juries didn't convict.

 

[Lysistrata]

Very misleading thread. It is the pregnant woman who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the woman's race. Moreover, Democrats don't push anyone to have an abortion. The only thing the Democratic Party "pushes" for is for government/politicians to stay out of this private matter so that the proper decisionmaker, the woman, makes the final decision on her own terms. She is the only one qualified to make the decision, not some lame-brained politician.

If the Progs werent pushing for abortions, why do they run on the policy for women to abort, even after the birth? Seems that if you didnt want someone to abort a baby, you would be out there saying how bad it is, not that it should be free, and other people who work have to pay for it. Got that? Again, though you arent answering the question about why black women are told to kill their babies in the millions, thus having their population decimated(the Southern White Democrats of the South couldnt be any prouder) when the blacks should be having more babies, just so their voices would be a lot louder at election time.....

There is no such policy. Do you know what the word "policy" means? I never said anything about wanting or not wanting someone to abort a pregnancy or not abort a pregnancy. I wrote only as to who is the proper, qualified decisionmaker, and it is not government or politicians. You must be really stupid if you haven't heard of the Hyde Amendment and all of the restrictive regulations that have come out of HHS as it plays politics with our money.

There is no "question' as to black women being told by anyone whether or not to continue with a pregnancy or not, so there is nothing to answer.

I haven't heard of anyone telling black women to have an abortion or forcing them to go to women's clinics. Where did you hear this? There is so much misinformation about birth control and abortion being circulated deliberately to trick people that I do not pay much attention to these stories unless they come from a reputable source like the AMA or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Do you know if a civil-rights organization like the NAACP or the National Organization for Women has weighed in on this?

it is a politicians game to PLAY IT, Lysie. Sometimes
it includes GERRYMANDERING type politics. The who
should pay thing. The possible loss of welfare for
the NEXT ONE thing. Every detail is meat for politics,
MOST OF ALL----the genocide libel

If I understand what you are saying, this is why I don't think that there is any role for government/politicians to play here. Ideological/philosophical/theological/sectarian conclusions must be left up to the individual.

And paid for by the individual.

Not any more than anything else is. BTW: How much are we each paying to make up for the stupidly granted tax exemptions for religious faiths that are really just political parties?

You got a point there...
Every Synagogue, Church and Mosque in Nassau County owns all the politicians.
The County and Town hands out Permits like toilet paper.

It's amazing how much pull that religious organizations have. I grew up in North Jersey's Bergen County and my grandparents lived in Nassau, beginning in around 1920, so I know. The Catholic Church in my town, in the 60s, didn't like the fact that there was a "head shop" across the street from it, which it did not own. The RC people screamed about it until it was forced to close. No drugs were sold in the shop, just posters, beads, peace symbols, tie-dyed T-shirts, etc. This refusal to MYOB was one of the things that soured me on the RCs. It's fine for people to worship as they choose, but it isn't fine to bully everybody else into submission, and the politicians let them do it, or perhaps accept fat checks to do their bidding.

I'm surprised that mosques are in on the deal, considering how many people go screaming to the zoning board about parking problems and noise when they hear that one is going to be built.

So you really don't like the idea of churches tacking social issues, and think they should confine their prayers inside their 4 walls?

What I think you are failing to realize is that here in America we have Freedom of Religion, not merely a freedom to worship, and speaking out against slavery, or drugs or numerous other social ills is part of this freedom. The Religious Left in Chicago has protested in front of gun stores and billboard companies that advertise cigarettes and malt liquor in the ghetto. Should they be minding their own business too, or are libs exempt?

It's one thing to state your view on something, to protest, but another to abuse the law to impose it on other people. Government has to remain neutral on these issues. You are denying the fact that Americans hold a variety of beliefs and reject other ones. If somebody's religion says something about women or LGBTs, for instance, can women of other faiths, and LGBTs of other faiths, as well as the non-religious, protest this religion and picket and protest at these people's churches, businesses, or homes? This is also speaking out on social ills.

It is unfair to use the legal system to attack others based on one's faith when a faith cannot be outlawed in this country no matter what it teaches. The situation is too one-sided and it allows the government to side with one group against another group and gives one side an out and allows it to escape liability for its actions. For instance, a blanket government rule or regulation that allows a ban on LGBTs adopting children, based on an allegation by some "religious" organization that LGBTs are pedophiles, is discriminatory and provides a legal shield for those making this accusation from any liability for making a false accusation. Our values as Americans require neutral rules. IF an adoptive parent seems to be molesting the child that s/he has adopted, the adult who suspects this should report it to the police. If an investigation shows this to be true, the parent will be subject to criminal liability. If a false accusation has been made, the victim of it has to have legal recourse against the accuser for defamation, to which the unjustly accused is entitled.

What you are failing to realize is that freedom of religion applies to all people, even if your particular faith has some objection to these people or something they are doing, because they are free to choose beliefs other than yours. You are also failing to realize that Americans have other rights that are entitled to the same protection as the right to freedom of religion, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of association, and equal protection of the laws and due process.

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...

When has abortion, guns, anything been put up for a popular vote:? How did abortion become illegal prior to the 70s? Was there a vote on this issue?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Very misleading thread. It is the pregnant woman who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the woman's race. Moreover, Democrats don't push anyone to have an abortion. The only thing the Democratic Party "pushes" for is for government/politicians to stay out of this private matter so that the proper decisionmaker, the woman, makes the final decision on her own terms. She is the only one qualified to make the decision, not some lame-brained politician.

If the Progs werent pushing for abortions, why do they run on the policy for women to abort, even after the birth? Seems that if you didnt want someone to abort a baby, you would be out there saying how bad it is, not that it should be free, and other people who work have to pay for it. Got that? Again, though you arent answering the question about why black women are told to kill their babies in the millions, thus having their population decimated(the Southern White Democrats of the South couldnt be any prouder) when the blacks should be having more babies, just so their voices would be a lot louder at election time.....

There is no such policy. Do you know what the word "policy" means? I never said anything about wanting or not wanting someone to abort a pregnancy or not abort a pregnancy. I wrote only as to who is the proper, qualified decisionmaker, and it is not government or politicians. You must be really stupid if you haven't heard of the Hyde Amendment and all of the restrictive regulations that have come out of HHS as it plays politics with our money.

There is no "question' as to black women being told by anyone whether or not to continue with a pregnancy or not, so there is nothing to answer.

I haven't heard of anyone telling black women to have an abortion or forcing them to go to women's clinics. Where did you hear this? There is so much misinformation about birth control and abortion being circulated deliberately to trick people that I do not pay much attention to these stories unless they come from a reputable source like the AMA or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Do you know if a civil-rights organization like the NAACP or the National Organization for Women has weighed in on this?

it is a politicians game to PLAY IT, Lysie. Sometimes
it includes GERRYMANDERING type politics. The who
should pay thing. The possible loss of welfare for
the NEXT ONE thing. Every detail is meat for politics,
MOST OF ALL----the genocide libel

If I understand what you are saying, this is why I don't think that there is any role for government/politicians to play here. Ideological/philosophical/theological/sectarian conclusions must be left up to the individual.

And paid for by the individual.

Not any more than anything else is. BTW: How much are we each paying to make up for the stupidly granted tax exemptions for religious faiths that are really just political parties?

You got a point there...
Every Synagogue, Church and Mosque in Nassau County owns all the politicians.
The County and Town hands out Permits like toilet paper.

It's amazing how much pull that religious organizations have. I grew up in North Jersey's Bergen County and my grandparents lived in Nassau, beginning in around 1920, so I know. The Catholic Church in my town, in the 60s, didn't like the fact that there was a "head shop" across the street from it, which it did not own. The RC people screamed about it until it was forced to close. No drugs were sold in the shop, just posters, beads, peace symbols, tie-dyed T-shirts, etc. This refusal to MYOB was one of the things that soured me on the RCs. It's fine for people to worship as they choose, but it isn't fine to bully everybody else into submission, and the politicians let them do it, or perhaps accept fat checks to do their bidding.

I'm surprised that mosques are in on the deal, considering how many people go screaming to the zoning board about parking problems and noise when they hear that one is going to be built.

So you really don't like the idea of churches tacking social issues, and think they should confine their prayers inside their 4 walls?

What I think you are failing to realize is that here in America we have Freedom of Religion, not merely a freedom to worship, and speaking out against slavery, or drugs or numerous other social ills is part of this freedom. The Religious Left in Chicago has protested in front of gun stores and billboard companies that advertise cigarettes and malt liquor in the ghetto. Should they be minding their own business too, or are libs exempt?

It's one thing to state your view on something, to protest, but another to abuse the law to impose it on other people. Government has to remain neutral on these issues. You are denying the fact that Americans hold a variety of beliefs and reject other ones. If somebody's religion says something about women or LGBTs, for instance, can women of other faiths, and LGBTs of other faiths, as well as the non-religious, protest this religion and picket and protest at these people's churches, businesses, or homes? This is also speaking out on social ills.

It is unfair to use the legal system to attack others based on one's faith when a faith cannot be outlawed in this country no matter what it teaches. The situation is too one-sided and it allows the government to side with one group against another group and gives one side an out and allows it to escape liability for its actions. For instance, a blanket government rule or regulation that allows a ban on LGBTs adopting children, based on an allegation by some "religious" organization that LGBTs are pedophiles, is discriminatory and provides a legal shield for those making this accusation from any liability for making a false accusation. Our values as Americans require neutral rules. IF an adoptive parent seems to be molesting the child that s/he has adopted, the adult who suspects this should report it to the police. If an investigation shows this to be true, the parent will be subject to criminal liability. If a false accusation has been made, the victim of it has to have legal recourse against the accuser for defamation, to which the unjustly accused is entitled.

What you are failing to realize is that freedom of religion applies to all people, even if your particular faith has some objection to these people or something they are doing, because they are free to choose beliefs other than yours. You are also failing to realize that Americans have other rights that are entitled to the same protection as the right to freedom of religion, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of association, and equal protection of the laws and due process.

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...

When has abortion, guns, anything been put up for a popular vote:? How did abortion become illegal prior to the 70s? Was there a vote on this issue?

Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Balking At Anti-Federalism Drones Promoting Statistism To Over Ride Individual Liberty "

* No Panic Just Annoyed By Neophytes Lacking Understanding For Limits Of State Interest *

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...

Duh , this is a republic and not a direct democracy , and all the 9 men in black robes did in 1973 was to enforce the constitution about abortion .

That civics in the us fails to distinguish between negative liberties as protections versus positive liberties as endowments while mindlessly bantering for equal wrights is pathetic .

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.

Actually, most of the pre-1973 Abortion laws dated back to the 19th century, they were never 'voted" on by the people. And women certainly weren't asked THEIR opinion on the matter.

Here's the part you guys always get wrong about Roe. Roe didn't end protections for fetuses. Abortions were performed regularly by doctors, who ignored the laws with impunity and were never prosecuted for doing so.

They abolished laws that were dead letter. No one really thought it was a complex issue, just like they hadn't 8 years earlier when they abolished all the contraception laws under Griswald v. CT. The Evangelicals didn't care about the issue, they thought it was a "Catholic Thing" and the Catholics treated it about as seriously as eating meat during Lent.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.

Actually, most of the pre-1973 Abortion laws dated back to the 19th century, they were never 'voted" on by the people. And women certainly weren't asked THEIR opinion on the matter.

Here's the part you guys always get wrong about Roe. Roe didn't end protections for fetuses. Abortions were performed regularly by doctors, who ignored the laws with impunity and were never prosecuted for doing so.

They abolished laws that were dead letter. No one really thought it was a complex issue, just like they hadn't 8 years earlier when they abolished all the contraception laws under Griswald v. CT. The Evangelicals didn't care about the issue, they thought it was a "Catholic Thing" and the Catholics treated it about as seriously as eating meat during Lent.

you are delirious. Abortion was DANGEROUS because it was illegal

 

[JoeB131]

you are delirious. Abortion was DANGEROUS because it was illegal

Um, no, it really wasn't by 1973.

In 1972, the last year before Roe, 36 women died from Abortion complications in states where abortion was illegal. That might sound bad, but that same year, 22 women died from complications in states where abortion was legal.

Now, abortion was dangerous in the 1940's, when all these chicks who fucked the milkman while their hubbies were off fighting WWII got them from back alley providers.

But by 1972, OB/GYN's were ignoring the laws, and no one was bothering to enforce them at that point.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

" Balking At Anti-Federalism Drones Promoting Statistism To Over Ride Individual Liberty "

* No Panic Just Annoyed By Neophytes Lacking Understanding For Limits Of State Interest *

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...

Duh , this is a republic and not a direct democracy , and all the 9 men in black robes did in 1973 was to enforce the constitution about abortion .

That civics in the us fails to distinguish between negative liberties as protections versus positive liberties as endowments while mindlessly bantering for equal wrights is pathetic .

Where in the constitution does it say a women has the right to kill her baby? Please show US where it is....

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mindless Question Indicative Of Delusion "

* Rhetorical Nonsense *

Where in the constitution does it say a women has the right to kill her baby? Please show US where it is....

Duh , a baby has been born and having been born it has met the requisite for state interest and constitutional protections ; thus , the constitution does not say it is okay to kill a baby .

Do you have a more succinct question demonstrating actual validity ?

 

[Unkotare]

" Race Baiting With Fake Moral Outrage "

* Religion Of Secular Humanism Undermining Self Sacrifice *

Funny how you suddenly use the number of abortions not the rate of abortions. 34% of all abortions are from black women, is that because black women are too stupid to take care of their own?

How is reducing the level of procreation for a better quality of life stupid , unless of course others are aspiring to breed you out of political affluence so as to undermine the sacrifices you are making to improve your quality of life by helping themselves to your property through social welfare programs , at which you cannot beat them so may as well join them in promulgating a deep dive into the pit of despair .

The dead don’t have a very high quality of life.

 

[bodecea]

Aborted black babies-can we change the statistics? - Anglicans For Life

One simple way to decrease the number of aborted black babies could be as simple as listening to the stories of our African-American friends.

anglicansforlife.org

This is one of the reasons why the black population is only around 15% and will always be a minority, thus keeping White Democrats in power, who follow their ancestors footsteps of the Democrats of the South.

Black Population by State 2024

Republicans have been wanting to allow babies their chance in this world, because we just dont know which one, could of invented "warp speed", or the cure for cancer, but we will never know.

Why Republicans Talk about Abortion and Democrats Don’t | National Review

The Republican convention featured a speech attacking unlimited legal abortion, while last week Democrats ignored the issue entirely.

www.nationalreview.com

Now the argument of the progressives(recessives) is that if those black babies are allowed to be born, then they will starve, because Republicans dont want to take care of other people's children. My answer to that argument is the Progs "think" that black people are too stupid to take care of their own children, and if that isnt racist to the core, i dont know what is? Are black people too stupid to take care of their own children?

Would like to hear from the blacks who frequent this board and get their opinion on the progs?

That's terrible. Who forced those black women to have abortions?

 

[bodecea]

View attachment 392703

Want to refute anything i posted? Or are you just a retarded prog who loves it when black women abort their babies?

Who forced those black women to abort their "babies"?

 

[bodecea]

Every American should be required to watch a live abortion. I am an RN, I won't go into the graphic details of the procedure but suffice it to say, the experience will change most peoples opinion on abortion forever.

Would that be before or after every American is required (here's the real forcing) to watch a person in a coma from Covid and an open heart surgery?

 

[bodecea]

Very misleading thread. It is the pregnant woman who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the woman's race. Moreover, Democrats don't push anyone to have an abortion. The only thing the Democratic Party "pushes" for is for government/politicians to stay out of this private matter so that the proper decisionmaker, the woman, makes the final decision on her own terms. She is the only one qualified to make the decision, not some lame-brained politician.

If the Progs werent pushing for abortions, why do they run on the policy for women to abort, even after the birth? Seems that if you didnt want someone to abort a baby, you would be out there saying how bad it is, not that it should be free, and other people who work have to pay for it. Got that? Again, though you arent answering the question about why black women are told to kill their babies in the millions, thus having their population decimated(the Southern White Democrats of the South couldnt be any prouder) when the blacks should be having more babies, just so their voices would be a lot louder at election time.....

"policy for women to abort, even after the birth"....now you are lying.

 

[Taz]

Aborted black babies-can we change the statistics? - Anglicans For Life

One simple way to decrease the number of aborted black babies could be as simple as listening to the stories of our African-American friends.

anglicansforlife.org

This is one of the reasons why the black population is only around 15% and will always be a minority, thus keeping White Democrats in power, who follow their ancestors footsteps of the Democrats of the South.

Black Population by State 2024

Republicans have been wanting to allow babies their chance in this world, because we just dont know which one, could of invented "warp speed", or the cure for cancer, but we will never know.

Why Republicans Talk about Abortion and Democrats Don’t | National Review

The Republican convention featured a speech attacking unlimited legal abortion, while last week Democrats ignored the issue entirely.

www.nationalreview.com

Now the argument of the progressives(recessives) is that if those black babies are allowed to be born, then they will starve, because Republicans dont want to take care of other people's children. My answer to that argument is the Progs "think" that black people are too stupid to take care of their own children, and if that isnt racist to the core, i dont know what is? Are black people too stupid to take care of their own children?

Would like to hear from the blacks who frequent this board and get their opinion on the progs?

So you want a lot more chimps in the US? Is that your final answer?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

" Mindless Question Indicative Of Delusion "

* Rhetorical Nonsense *

Where in the constitution does it say a women has the right to kill her baby? Please show US where it is....

Duh , a baby has been born and having been born it has met the requisite for state interest and constitutional protections ; thus , the constitution does not say it is okay to kill a baby .

Do you have a more succinct question demonstrating actual validity ?

I have seen time after time where a pregnant woman is murdered and the "baby" died also, thus having the murderer guilty for two deaths. Again, where does it say in the Constitution that a woman is allowed to murder their unborn child? If Scott was found guilty, then every woman colluding with an abortion doctor should be found guilty also.

Scott Peterson convicted of murder - HISTORY

On November 12, 2004, Scott Peterson is convicted of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Explaining The Fine Print "

* Technical Legal Jargon *

I have seen time after time where a pregnant woman is murdered and the "baby" died also, thus having the murderer guilty for two deaths. Again, where does it say in the Constitution that a woman is allowed to murder their unborn child? If Scott was found guilty, then every woman colluding with an abortion doctor should be found guilty also.
Scott Peterson convicted of murder - HISTORY
On November 12, 2004, Scott Peterson is convicted of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son.

The constitutional question is not " When does life begin ? ", rather the constitutional question is " When does a state interest begin ? " .

A state is comprised of citizens for who state interests arise , and an individual becomes a citizen at birth , whereby equal protection with a citizen and interests of a state to reprise a violation of wrights begin at birth .

The us 9th amendment stipulates that just because a state does not explicitly enumerate all wrights does not mean those wrights are not maintained by the people .

The term murder means unlawful killing , while a baby has been born and child means the time between birth to adolescence , such that anyone killing a baby or child would be prosecuted because it had been born .

As prior to birth the fetus does not have any constitutional protections , it is the private property of the mother , against whom any violation of law applies ; that is , the unborn victims of violence act states that the punishment for causing the death of an unborn fetus could be the same " as if " the crime had been committed against the mother .

In other less semantic words , the non consensual killing of an unborn fetus is a crime against the mother , and just as other extenuating crimes , additional penalties can be applied as long as the penalties do not violate the 8th amendment .

Note that capital punishment is not available for the non consensual killing of a fetus , because to remove ones own wright to life requires that one remove the wright to life of another , and as the fetus does not have a constitutional wright to life , the double entendre cannot be enforced .

 

[Juicin]

Always squint real hard at anyone trying to tell women to terminate pregnancy

Doesn't matter your color

There is basically people who support women's autonomy then a bunch of monsters who support these clinics.

Best way to reduce human suffering is just reduce teh number of them.....That's how a lot of the rich people who push birth control and abortion access think.

 

[IM2]

Aborted black babies-can we change the statistics? - Anglicans For Life

One simple way to decrease the number of aborted black babies could be as simple as listening to the stories of our African-American friends.

anglicansforlife.org

This is one of the reasons why the black population is only around 15% and will always be a minority, thus keeping White Democrats in power, who follow their ancestors footsteps of the Democrats of the South.

Black Population by State 2024

Republicans have been wanting to allow babies their chance in this world, because we just dont know which one, could of invented "warp speed", or the cure for cancer, but we will never know.

Why Republicans Talk about Abortion and Democrats Don’t | National Review

The Republican convention featured a speech attacking unlimited legal abortion, while last week Democrats ignored the issue entirely.

www.nationalreview.com

Now the argument of the progressives(recessives) is that if those black babies are allowed to be born, then they will starve, because Republicans dont want to take care of other people's children. My answer to that argument is the Progs "think" that black people are too stupid to take care of their own children, and if that isnt racist to the core, i dont know what is? Are black people too stupid to take care of their own children?

Would like to hear from the blacks who frequent this board and get their opinion on the progs?

No one is forcing Black women to have abortions.

Maybe Black men who father these children but don't support them should share in the blame.

ALL RISE!

Tonight's lesson:

The White Rascist Lie About Black Fatherhood

First off the black abortion rate is less than our percentage of the population. So the OP is just more white racist bullshit.

On June 8, 2015, Charles Blow wrote an article in the New York Times titled, “Black Dads Are Doing Best of All.” This article takes apart the tale of black fathers not being around for their kids. The issue of unwed births really has no relation to whether 2 parents are around. An unwed birth is a child being born and the couple is not married. That does not mean a man and a woman are not together raising the child. The single mother narrative got destroyed long ago, because a single mother does not mean a man will not be around to influence the child as it grows up. One fantastic example is the story Shaquille O’Neal tells about his relationship with Sergeant Phillip Harrison who raised him with his mother. Finally, the appearance of Barack Obama on the world stage allows me to say once and for all that a single parent family is not the cause of the problem. This article shows that most black children in this country live with their fathers or their fathers are active participants in their lives. In reality, not the convoluted racist mind, a mother and father ARE present in the majority of black homes.

Josh Levs points this out in his new book, “All In,” in a chapter titled “How Black Dads Are Doing Best of All (But There’s Still a Crisis).” One fact that Levs quickly establishes is that most black fathers in America live with their children: “There are about 2.5 million black fathers living with their children and about 1.7 million living apart from them.”

Charles Blow​

A report titled “Fathers’ Involvement With Their Children: United States, 2006–2010,” was published by the Centers for Disease Control in the National Health Report on December 20, 2013. The findings are interesting for those who have decided they can paint black culture in moral terms. Moral terms that 244 years of American history show whites who have decided they can do the painting refuse hold themselves to. The findings in this study debunk the standard racist white narrative to the point that it is miseducation, misinformation, lies, or whatever word you want to give to the purposeful deception provided to describe a race of people. Some of the findings are as follows:

A higher percentage of fathers who lived with their children under age 5 fed or ate meals with them daily—72% compared with 7.9% of fathers with noncoresidential children. A higher percentage of fathers living apart from their children did not feed or eat meals with them at all in the last 4 weeks—43% compared with 0.8% of fathers with coresidential children (Table 2). Variation by Hispanic origin and race was seen in the percentages of coresidential fathers who ate meals with their children every day. Specifically, Hispanic fathers were less likely to eat meals with their children every day (64%) than were non-Hispanic white (74%) or non-Hispanic black (78%) fathers.

There was a significant difference by Hispanic origin and race among fathers with coresidential children: Black fathers (70%) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60%) and Hispanic fathers (45%).

A higher percentage of Hispanic fathers aged 15–44 (52%) had not played with their noncoresidential children in the last 4 weeks compared with white (30%) and black (25%) fathers.

Larger percentages of Hispanic (82%) and white (70%) fathers had not helped their noncoresidential children with homework at all in the last 4 weeks compared with black fathers (56%).

• Pew Research estimates that 67 percent of black dads who do not live with their kids see them at least once a month, compared to 59 percent of white dads and 32 percent of Hispanic dads. Evidence shows that a number of black dads are living apart from their kids because of structural systems of inequality and poverty, not the unfounded racist assumption that African-American men place less or no value on parenting. Black and white fathers agree on the importance of being a father who provides emotional support, instills discipline and moral guidance. Black dads are also more likely to think it is important to provide for his children financially.

Simply put, the unwed, single mom, absent black father is not the cause of crime or violence in black communities. Single mothers have boyfriends, this seems to be ignored and it should not be.