Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[2018C3]

Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years with 10 killed and 39 injured in shootings.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/25/us/chicago-memorial-day-deaths/index.html

Why,and how can this nonsense be stopped? I do not have answers. Whats the real problem we have locally, and what can be done to stop it?

[League Circles]

It's terribly sad. IMO, they should basically institute martial law in the worst areas. Not so much because I think that's a default go-to solution, but because I think it's a better use of our troops than many of their current stations, and because some pockets of the city are so badly broken that typical remedies aren't likely to work.

[League Circles]

Also I generally favor decriminalization of drugs, but I've got to think that we should at least ponder drastically increasing criminal penalties for dealing coke, heroin, etc. Not all countries have this problem.

Another idea I've had is to make search and seizure for drugs somehow exempt from criminal search warrant requirements. Basically cops could come in and confiscate drugs based on much lower criteria than is required for a criminal search warrant, but it would be basically a CDC (centers for disease control) thing. They couldn't arrest anyone, but they could confiscate over and over almost at will, which may drive prices through the roof and drastically decrease the problem.

I think at its heart the violence problem on Chicago is a drug problem.

[gardenofsound]

Also I generally favor decriminalization of drugs, but I've got to think that we should at least ponder drastically increasing criminal penalties for dealing coke, heroin, etc. Not all countries have this problem.

Another idea I've had is to make search and seizure for drugs somehow exempt from criminal search warrant requirements. Basically cops could come in and confiscate drugs based on much lower criteria than is required for a criminal search warrant, but it would be basically a CDC (centers for disease control) thing. They couldn't arrest anyone, but they could confiscate over and over almost at will, which may drive prices through the roof and drastically decrease the problem.

I think at its heart the violence problem on Chicago is a drug problem.

I think it goes far beyond drugs, sadly.

Predatory/discriminatory real estate practices (kind of the root cause historically)
Discriminatory hiring practices
Lack of accessible, high quality schooling
Lack of available parents...
- lots of parents end up in prison
- it's extremely hard to be a single parent, particularly with so many negative influences ready to fill the gaps.
Limited positive interactions with police
Ease of access to guns (Indiana and Wisconsin)

Honestly, the only reason drugs are a part of the equation is because it's the most direct, accessible, and realistic way for many of these people to make money and earn respect.

I don't think a harder stick will cure this problem. I think you need to present real, tangible, feasible ways to earn respect and money.

I'm in Oak Park. Two miles east is Austin. A lot of the real estate is similar... I mean, Austin has some REALLY nice homes.

There are a lot of differences between the two communities.

You know what I think goes a long way?

Change the way public schools are funded so that the funding comes from the state, not local property taxes. There's no real reason OPRF should be getting so much more money than CPS schools in struggling neighborhoods. The way it is now, poor neighborhoods put less money into schools and richer neighborhood puts more money. It let's stratification continue to spiral as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Equal opportunity my ass.

[League Circles]

I think it goes far beyond drugs, sadly.

Predatory/discriminatory real estate practices (kind of the root cause historically)
Discriminatory hiring practices
Lack of accessible, high quality schooling
Lack of available parents...
- lots of parents end up in prison
- it's extremely hard to be a single parent, particularly with so many negative influences ready to fill the gaps.
Limited positive interactions with police
Ease of access to guns (Indiana and Wisconsin)

Honestly, the only reason drugs are a part of the equation is because it's the most direct, accessible, and realistic way for many of these people to make money and earn respect.

The only reason???? You don't think countless people abusing drugs is a big problem that, for example, heavily correlates with bad and/or absentee parenting?

Also, I'm not sure that this even can be true. Yes selling drugs is thought of as a way to make easy money, and as a way to earn street cred in bad areas, but from what I've read, IIRC, entry level drug market employees earn next to nothing, and numbers wise, I don't really think it's possible that such people outnumber honest working people.

But respect is a key word. The wrong types of actions are respected while truly respectable ways of living are laughed at or scoffed at. Though this is a problem everywhere in the US IMO.

I don't think a harder stick will cure this problem. I think you need to present real, tangible, feasible ways to earn respect and money.

Idk, the countries with the most severe drug penalties, IIRC, have basically low level or non existent drug problems, and a number of these are very poor countries where people live not only a poorer lifestyle than Chicagoans, but also live under a greater wealth disparity than Chicagoans.

I'm in Oak Park. Two miles east is Austin. A lot of the real estate is similar... I mean, Austin has some REALLY nice homes.

There are a lot of differences between the two communities.

You know what I think goes a long way?

Change the way public schools are funded so that the funding comes from the state, not local property taxes. There's no real reason OPRF should be getting so much more money than CPS schools in struggling neighborhoods. The way it is now, poor neighborhoods put less money into schools and richer neighborhood puts more money. It let's stratification continue to spiral as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Equal opportunity my ass.

Yes, this is well worth looking at. I checked out the spending per pupil of three districts. Oak Park, Chicago, and an affluent suburb near me. Oak park had seemingly extremely high expenditures, but the affluent district bear me barely exceeded chicago in spending. I'm not sure spending per pupil is actually all that big of a problem anymore tbh.

I've read and heard some criticism of no child left behind educational policies and how they kill students with potential in bad districts. I don't know enough about it myself to have a strong opinion, but it's worth considering.

Your concerns are legit but IMO, basically treat the violence as inseparable from general economic and quality of living issues. I think approaching it from that broad of a perspective is too ambitious IMO. Not in general, but specifically with regards to the violence.

As for discriminatory hiring and housing practices, just curious, do you mean within the most violent communities, or outside of them?

[gardenofsound]

I think it goes far beyond drugs, sadly.

Predatory/discriminatory real estate practices (kind of the root cause historically)
Discriminatory hiring practices
Lack of accessible, high quality schooling
Lack of available parents...
- lots of parents end up in prison
- it's extremely hard to be a single parent, particularly with so many negative influences ready to fill the gaps.
Limited positive interactions with police
Ease of access to guns (Indiana and Wisconsin)

Honestly, the only reason drugs are a part of the equation is because it's the most direct, accessible, and realistic way for many of these people to make money and earn respect.

The only reason???? You don't think countless people abusing drugs is a big problem that, for example, heavily correlates with bad and/or absentee parenting?

Also, I'm not sure that this even can be true. Yes selling drugs is thought of as a way to make easy money, and as a way to earn street cred in bad areas, but from what I've read, IIRC, entry level drug market employees earn next to nothing, and numbers wise, I don't really think it's possible that such people outnumber honest working people.

But respect is a key word. The wrong types of actions are respected while truly respectable ways of living are laughed at or scoffed at. Though this is a problem everywhere in the US IMO.

I don't think a harder stick will cure this problem. I think you need to present real, tangible, feasible ways to earn respect and money.

Idk, the countries with the most severe drug penalties, IIRC, have basically low level or non existent drug problems, and a number of these are very poor countries where people live not only a poorer lifestyle than Chicagoans, but also live under a greater wealth disparity than Chicagoans.

I'm in Oak Park. Two miles east is Austin. A lot of the real estate is similar... I mean, Austin has some REALLY nice homes.

There are a lot of differences between the two communities.

You know what I think goes a long way?

Change the way public schools are funded so that the funding comes from the state, not local property taxes. There's no real reason OPRF should be getting so much more money than CPS schools in struggling neighborhoods. The way it is now, poor neighborhoods put less money into schools and richer neighborhood puts more money. It let's stratification continue to spiral as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Equal opportunity my ass.

Yes, this is well worth looking at. I checked out the spending per pupil of three districts. Oak Park, Chicago, and an affluent suburb near me. Oak park had seemingly extremely high expenditures, but the affluent district bear me barely exceeded chicago in spending. I'm not sure spending per pupil is actually all that big of a problem anymore tbh.

I've read and heard some criticism of no child left behind educational policies and how they kill students with potential in bad districts. I don't know enough about it myself to have a strong opinion, but it's worth considering.

Your concerns are legit but IMO, basically treat the violence as inseparable from general economic and quality of living issues. I think approaching it from that broad of a perspective is too ambitious IMO. Not in general, but specifically with regards to the violence.

As for discriminatory hiring and housing practices, just curious, do you mean within the most violent communities, or outside of them?

I mean overall. There aren't many jobs to be had in violent communities because they are in complete economic decay. Then subconscious biases come into play for any hiring outside of those communities. "Oh, that girl is from Englewood... is she gonna be a lose cannon if we hire her at our [insert business here], and are her 'riff raff' friends going to come here and scare our customers away?"

Then there are limitations on section 8 where you just won't see it as much in more affluent neighborhoods. You see section 8 housing availability decline in MAJOR ways, even in Oak Park. Oak Park used to be a bastion of economic and racial diversity, but we're seeing a lot of that go away with limited affordable housing options and skyrocketing property taxes (the bulk of which is being spent on the schools).

Drugs are a cycle that grows, but drug dealers get into the game because it's a way to make money, get respect, and, in some cases, avoid getting your ass whooped by the gangbangers that are trying to recruit you. On the other end, if it's the corner dealer who buys you dinner when your mom is working late, or buys you new shoes when your shoes have holes in them... eventually human nature is to reciprocate by doing what they ask you to do. It doesn't hurt to see them and think, "Wow, he has enough money to wear a new pair of Jordans AND get me dinner and some new shoes. I want that."

When I was in high school in Oak Park, there were SEVERAL heroin users/addicts in the student body. The addicts don't cause the violence. They're just looking for a fix, and yeah they might burglarize a car or home and sell stuff to pawn shops to get drug money, but they're rarely holding people up and committing violent acts. The dealers/gangs are doing that because it's all about turf and revenue and sending messages.

You want to fix the violence problem, get the kids out of the hood and give them something more to aspire and work towards. Make it feasible. Make it realistic. Help them see themselves doing it. Give them exposure to different professions. Give them OPTIONS.

So many kids in the city of Chicago have never even ventured outside of their neighborhoods to go downtown or anything. When the only dudes getting respect in your hood are selling rocks, and that's all you've ever seen, then it doesn't leave that many options.

EDIT: adding one note: a lot of the countries with draconian drug policies also have much more stringent laws around guns. This country doesn't, and even if Chicago/IL do, there's no way to stop guns from being smuggled in from Indiana or Wisconsin. It's really a short drive.

The only difference between a fist fight outside and and a couple of dead people (including that 5 year old in her bedroom) is the gun.

[SHO'NUFF]

Uneducated parents “raising” kids. Stop having kids. Stop relying on government handouts for every kid you have. Unfortunately, some women have children with different men....it’s a game to them. Then they wonder why? Ok, don’t have children. But no, the government incentives are too enticing.

[dice]

Uneducated parents “raising” kids. Stop having kids. Stop relying on government handouts for every kid you have. Unfortunately, some women have children with different men....it’s a game to them. Then they wonder why? Ok, don’t have children. But no, the government incentives are too enticing.

i don't think it's financially beneficial even in the short-term to have children. as evidenced by all the children going to bed hungry in this country

and you'll notice that uneducated communities have more children. you're not going to get anywhere with shame. you WILL with increased opportunity, starting with education

people of all kinds tend to reproduce for the same reason: selfishness. they think it will add value/meaning/happiness to their lives. also, we are conditioned to think that becoming a parent someday is supposed to be a part of life. people like the idea of automatic, unconditional love and they get that from babies. unfortunately, people in bad situations more than anybody else are in need of that kind of human connection

you make a good point about women having children with different men. it's apparently a common thing in the black community for women to want children but not to live with the father(s). that's a problem. not sure if that line of thought is prevalent in other communities as well

[gardenofsound]

Uneducated parents “raising” kids. Stop having kids. Stop relying on government handouts for every kid you have. Unfortunately, some women have children with different men....it’s a game to them. Then they wonder why? Ok, don’t have children. But no, the government incentives are too enticing.

This seems to attempt to perpetuate the debunked dog-whistle of the "welfare queen."

People/communities don't have kids for the tax breaks en masse. Of course, there are outliers, but most have kids because of any of the following:

1. Lack of education/access when it comes to contraception.
2. Religious reasoning for not using contraception and/or abortion.

You need a doctor to get birth control prescriptions.

Almost everyone enjoys sex. It's kind of a think that's biologically hard wired into us. But when contraception is not readily available/accessible, the kids tend to happen.

[gardenofsound]

Uneducated parents “raising” kids. Stop having kids. Stop relying on government handouts for every kid you have. Unfortunately, some women have children with different men....it’s a game to them. Then they wonder why? Ok, don’t have children. But no, the government incentives are too enticing.

i don't think it's financially beneficial even in the short-term to have children. as evidenced by all the children going to bed hungry in this country

and you'll notice that uneducated communities have more children. you're not going to get anywhere with shame. you WILL with increased opportunity, starting with education

people of all kinds tend to reproduce for the same reason: selfishness. they think it will add value/meaning/happiness to their lives. also, we are conditioned to think that becoming a parent someday is supposed to be a part of life. people like the idea of automatic, unconditional love and they get that from babies. unfortunately, people in bad situations more than anybody else are in need of that kind of human connection

you make a good point about women having children with different men. it's apparently a common thing in the black community for women to want children but not to live with the father(s). that's a problem. not sure if that line of thought is prevalent in other communities as well

I disagree with a LOT of the bold.

First, yes, selfishness is a big issue. But may that selfishness has more to do with wanting an orgasm. Educated folks may have a lot of the "fulfillment" aspects, but when it comes down to it, again, almost every human wants an orgasm. We're one of very few species that has sex for fun.

The "apparently it's a common thing in the black community for women to want children but not live with the father" statement is a gross generalization. I'd be curious as to where/how you developed this view.

[Shill]

Change the way public schools are funded so that the funding comes from the state, not local property taxes. There's no real reason OPRF should be getting so much more money than CPS schools in struggling neighborhoods. The way it is now, poor neighborhoods put less money into schools and richer neighborhood puts more money. It let's stratification continue to spiral as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Equal opportunity my ass.

I believe other states have tried variations of this (e.g. New Jersey), and it didn't have a significant impact. Funding isn't the hurdle, IMO.

Some social scientists in the field of education have recommended a form of busing 2.0; their theory is that kids in socioeconomically depressed aeras will perform better when surrounded by higher-achieving students.

I don't think that's the answer, but it gets closer to the solution, which revolves around creating a culture that fosters education.

Kids who grow up in environments where there are books in the home and reading is encouraged and parents are invested in their education have much better outcomes, even with limited resources.

It's a problem that goes deeper than funding.

[dice]

Uneducated parents “raising” kids. Stop having kids. Stop relying on government handouts for every kid you have. Unfortunately, some women have children with different men....it’s a game to them. Then they wonder why? Ok, don’t have children. But no, the government incentives are too enticing.

i don't think it's financially beneficial even in the short-term to have children. as evidenced by all the children going to bed hungry in this country

and you'll notice that uneducated communities have more children. you're not going to get anywhere with shame. you WILL with increased opportunity, starting with education

people of all kinds tend to reproduce for the same reason: selfishness. they think it will add value/meaning/happiness to their lives. also, we are conditioned to think that becoming a parent someday is supposed to be a part of life. people like the idea of automatic, unconditional love and they get that from babies. unfortunately, people in bad situations more than anybody else are in need of that kind of human connection

you make a good point about women having children with different men. it's apparently a common thing in the black community for women to want children but not to live with the father(s). that's a problem. not sure if that line of thought is prevalent in other communities as well

I disagree with a LOT of the bold.

First, yes, selfishness is a big issue. But may that selfishness has more to do with wanting an orgasm. Educated folks may have a lot of the "fulfillment" aspects, but when it comes down to it, again, almost every human wants an orgasm. We're one of very few species that has sex for fun.

The "apparently it's a common thing in the black community for women to want children but not live with the father" statement is a gross generalization. I'd be curious as to where/how you developed this view.

1) your use of the the word 'generalization' implies across the board, which i certainly did not intend, thus my use of the word 'common'
2) i didn't develop any view. i saw an interview (can't remember where) with a woman who works in the black community who pointed it out to the interviewer, who had the same reaction you did

as for your orgasm thing, the decision to have sex and the decision to raise children are very different things. i was speaking, quite obviously, to the conscious decision to birth and raise children

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Also I generally favor decriminalization of drugs, but I've got to think that we should at least ponder drastically increasing criminal penalties for dealing coke, heroin, etc. Not all countries have this problem.

Another idea I've had is to make search and seizure for drugs somehow exempt from criminal search warrant requirements. Basically cops could come in and confiscate drugs based on much lower criteria than is required for a criminal search warrant, but it would be basically a CDC (centers for disease control) thing. They couldn't arrest anyone, but they could confiscate over and over almost at will,

If you don't think that will be abused immediately and en masse - I don't know what to tell you.

which may drive prices through the roof and drastically decrease the problem.

You've just increased crime. The demand for the drug remains - they'll find new ways to pay for it. An addict is still an addict - regardless how much that drug is selling for. If anything you'l see even more deaths from dirty drugs and fentanyl.

I think at its heart the violence problem on Chicago is a drug problem.

Economics / drugs / systemic racism / education all play into it.

The best thing we could do for this city and cities all across this country is to stop the ridiculous war on drugs. Stop militarizing our police forces. Take all of that money and sink it into education, addiction/recovery, and jobs programs. Stop putting generation after generation into prison for addiction and mental health issues.

We've incentivized our cities and police forces to arrest and imprison as many people as possible. We need to focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration - but there is far too much money to be made from private prisons and federal grants for city/state government to do the right thing.

[Shill]

1. Lack of education/access when it comes to contraception.
2. Religious reasoning for not using contraception and/or abortion.

You need a doctor to get birth control prescriptions.

Disagree.

Illegitimacy rates have increased among all demographics over the past six-plus decades. I think since the mid-1960s, the white rate went from around 5% to 30%, and the black rate went from around 25% to 75%.

Education and access to contraception weren't better in the 1950s and 1960s, and religious objection to abortion certainly isn't stronger today.

I think there was a study that sex education classes in the 1980s were followed by an increase in teen pregnancy.

One of the biggest differences is a cultural shift in attitudes toward out-of-wedlock child-rearing.

There was a heavy social stigma against it back in the day. Now you have billionaire celebrities like Kylie Jenner having kids out of marriage.

[gardenofsound]

1. Lack of education/access when it comes to contraception.
2. Religious reasoning for not using contraception and/or abortion.

You need a doctor to get birth control prescriptions.

Disagree.

Illegitimacy rates have increased among all demographics over the past six-plus decades. I think since the mid-1960s, the white rate went from around 5% to 30%, and the black rate went from around 25% to 75%.

Education and access to contraception weren't better in the 1950s and 1960s, and religious objection to abortion certainly isn't stronger today.

I think there was a study that sex education classes in the 1980s were followed by an increase in teen pregnancy.

One of the biggest differences is a cultural shift in attitudes toward out-of-wedlock child-rearing.

There was a heavy social stigma against it back in the day. Now you have billionaire celebrities like Kylie Jenner having kids out of marriage.

My response was to the claim that uneducated folks are having kids so that they can get government handouts.

The trend you are referencing is much more prevalent in professional, affluent white or Asian women in the USA. You're talking about a voluntary choice.

I'm talking about the "I want to have sex" with children really not being part of the thought process until you find out you're pregnant. That's a contraception and education issue. Teenage girls in affluent neighborhoods are starting on the pill pretty young because they get regular checkups with a family doctor and have parents that are on board with it.

I can look for some studies to back what I am saying here. Here's a start:

Poor teens of color are less likely to have access to quality health care and contraceptive services, and are much more likely to live in neighborhoods where jobs and opportunities for advancement are scarce, according to Gail Wyatt, a clinical psychologist and sex researcher at UCLA.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/03/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-persist-in-teen-pregnancy-rates

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

This article has this quote that directly addresses one of your points:

In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”

But then, to your point again,

The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

There's actually a lot in this article that I think changes some of my opinions but not the fundamental point:

With sexual abstinence rare and the stigma of out-of-wedlock motherhood small, denying women access to abortion and contraception would only increase the number of children born out-of-wedlock and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out-of-wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been “wanted” but “not at that time.” Some are reported as not wanted at all. Easier access to birth control information and devices, before sexual participation, and easier access to abortion, in the event of pregnancy, could reduce both the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait. Because of mothers’ ambivalence toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies, greater availability of these options has considerable promise for reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births.

[League Circles]

Also I generally favor decriminalization of drugs, but I've got to think that we should at least ponder drastically increasing criminal penalties for dealing coke, heroin, etc. Not all countries have this problem.

Another idea I've had is to make search and seizure for drugs somehow exempt from criminal search warrant requirements. Basically cops could come in and confiscate drugs based on much lower criteria than is required for a criminal search warrant, but it would be basically a CDC (centers for disease control) thing. They couldn't arrest anyone, but they could confiscate over and over almost at will,

If you don't think that will be abused immediately and en masse - I don't know what to tell you.

I'm just brainstorming unique ways to curtail the problem. Abused immediately and en masse....... Like drugs currently are?

You've just increased crime. The demand for the drug remains - they'll find new ways to pay for it. An addict is still an addict - regardless how much that drug is selling for. If anything you'l see even more deaths from dirty drugs and fentanyl.

I'm talking about drastically reducing the supply. That has an impact on behavior.

Economics / drugs / systemic racism / education all play into it.

The best thing we could do for this city and cities all across this country is to stop the ridiculous war on drugs. Stop militarizing our police forces. Take all of that money and sink it into education, addiction/recovery, and jobs programs. Stop putting generation after generation into prison for addiction and mental health issues.

All of what money? You think we should decrease funding for law enforcement? I don't, I think we should increase it substantially, even if penalties for crimes, including drug crimes, are reduced. Short term, we need waaay more LE presence on the streets in bad areas.

We've incentivized our cities and police forces to arrest and imprison as many people as possible. We need to focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration - but there is far too much money to be made from private prisons and federal grants for city/state government to do the right thing.

I'm just not sure if rehab is effective enough of a basket for us to put all of our eggs in it, so to speak. Like I said I've largely been for legalization of drugs for most of my life, but I think the case for "draconian" policies (waaaay more strict than we have had) is more promising as a way to reduce the harms of drugs to society. I do agree though, that the current system is not effective. It's the worst of both worlds in that you're limiting freedom with prohibition, but you're not effectively deterring anyone because penalties aren't very high compared to stricter nations.

[League Circles]

1. Lack of education/access when it comes to contraception.
2. Religious reasoning for not using contraception and/or abortion.

You need a doctor to get birth control prescriptions.

Disagree.

Illegitimacy rates have increased among all demographics over the past six-plus decades. I think since the mid-1960s, the white rate went from around 5% to 30%, and the black rate went from around 25% to 75%.

Education and access to contraception weren't better in the 1950s and 1960s, and religious objection to abortion certainly isn't stronger today.

I think there was a study that sex education classes in the 1980s were followed by an increase in teen pregnancy.

One of the biggest differences is a cultural shift in attitudes toward out-of-wedlock child-rearing.

There was a heavy social stigma against it back in the day. Now you have billionaire celebrities like Kylie Jenner having kids out of marriage.

My response was to the claim that uneducated folks are having kids so that they can get government handouts.

The trend you are referencing is much more prevalent in professional, affluent white or Asian women in the USA. You're talking about a voluntary choice.

I'm talking about the "I want to have sex" with children really not being part of the thought process until you find out you're pregnant. That's a contraception and education issue. Teenage girls in affluent neighborhoods are starting on the pill pretty young because they get regular checkups with a family doctor and have parents that are on board with it.

I can look for some studies to back what I am saying here. Here's a start:

Poor teens of color are less likely to have access to quality health care and contraceptive services, and are much more likely to live in neighborhoods where jobs and opportunities for advancement are scarce, according to Gail Wyatt, a clinical psychologist and sex researcher at UCLA.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/03/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-persist-in-teen-pregnancy-rates

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

This article has this quote that directly addresses one of your points:

In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”

But then, to your point again,

The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

There's actually a lot in this article that I think changes some of my opinions but not the fundamental point:

With sexual abstinence rare and the stigma of out-of-wedlock motherhood small, denying women access to abortion and contraception would only increase the number of children born out-of-wedlock and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out-of-wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been “wanted” but “not at that time.” Some are reported as not wanted at all. Easier access to birth control information and devices, before sexual participation, and easier access to abortion, in the event of pregnancy, could reduce both the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait. Because of mothers’ ambivalence toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies, greater availability of these options has considerable promise for reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births.

Honest question: in Chicago, what more should/needs to be done to educate kids about sex? From what I understand sex education is mandatory unless patents opt out.

I conceptualize this issue much moreso as one of a small number of adult women acting sexually reckless beyond belief, intentionally, and in a way somewhat incentivized by public policy, rather than an issue of too many teenagers getting pregnant because they didn't know about the birds and the bees.

[Shill]

1. Lack of education/access when it comes to contraception.
2. Religious reasoning for not using contraception and/or abortion.

You need a doctor to get birth control prescriptions.

Disagree.

Illegitimacy rates have increased among all demographics over the past six-plus decades. I think since the mid-1960s, the white rate went from around 5% to 30%, and the black rate went from around 25% to 75%.

Education and access to contraception weren't better in the 1950s and 1960s, and religious objection to abortion certainly isn't stronger today.

I think there was a study that sex education classes in the 1980s were followed by an increase in teen pregnancy.

One of the biggest differences is a cultural shift in attitudes toward out-of-wedlock child-rearing.

There was a heavy social stigma against it back in the day. Now you have billionaire celebrities like Kylie Jenner having kids out of marriage.

My response was to the claim that uneducated folks are having kids so that they can get government handouts.

The trend you are referencing is much more prevalent in professional, affluent white or Asian women in the USA. You're talking about a voluntary choice.

I'm talking about the "I want to have sex" with children really not being part of the thought process until you find out you're pregnant. That's a contraception and education issue. Teenage girls in affluent neighborhoods are starting on the pill pretty young because they get regular checkups with a family doctor and have parents that are on board with it.

I can look for some studies to back what I am saying here. Here's a start:

Poor teens of color are less likely to have access to quality health care and contraceptive services, and are much more likely to live in neighborhoods where jobs and opportunities for advancement are scarce, according to Gail Wyatt, a clinical psychologist and sex researcher at UCLA.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/03/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-persist-in-teen-pregnancy-rates

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

This article has this quote that directly addresses one of your points:

In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”

But then, to your point again,

The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

There's actually a lot in this article that I think changes some of my opinions but not the fundamental point:

With sexual abstinence rare and the stigma of out-of-wedlock motherhood small, denying women access to abortion and contraception would only increase the number of children born out-of-wedlock and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out-of-wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been “wanted” but “not at that time.” Some are reported as not wanted at all. Easier access to birth control information and devices, before sexual participation, and easier access to abortion, in the event of pregnancy, could reduce both the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait. Because of mothers’ ambivalence toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies, greater availability of these options has considerable promise for reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births.

That doesn't really refute anything I said.

If education and access were the leading factors, then the illegitimacy rate would be decreasing, not increasing.

And in some cities, the number of black women having abortions outpaces the number of black women giving birth:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697

In New York City, thousands more black babies are aborted than born alive each year, and the abortion rate among black mothers is more than three times higher than it is for white mothers. According to a city Health Department report released in May, between 2012 and 2016 black mothers terminated 136,426 pregnancies and gave birth to 118,127

A shift in cultural attitude toward out-of-wedlock motherhood and marriage in general are bigger factors, IMO.

As for your point about the "welfare queen," that caricature is overblown, but there is a problem with certain programs disincentivizing marriage.

For example, women can get more in assistance if they're unmarried and the father doesn't live in the home.

[Shill]

Honest question: in Chicago, what more should/needs to be done to educate kids about sex? From what I understand sex education is mandatory unless patents opt out.

I look at it like this.

What has more influence on teens, a fusty health class teacher showing kids how to put on a condom, or a rapper like Future who's shouting out his six baby mamas on Mother's Day?

You can give girls a pill and tell them to take it consistently at the same time of day, but that's doomed to fail over time, especially when the social cost of getting pregnant isn't the same as it was 50-60 years ago.

[Flopper]

Raising a child is hard, even under the best circumstances. And it's damn near impossible when talking about people without education, money/resources, and an intact family structure. I also don't think it's accurate to write off all these poor families as welfare moms gaming the system and I don't think this is strictly an inner city occurrence either. You can find plenty of families in rural and suburban areas where it's multiple children born out of wedlock from different fathers.

I have a cousin who's made some poor choices in terms of partners and birth control and has 4 kids from 3 different fathers. Obviously things are far from perfect, but these kids at least have decent schools to attend, are eligible for low/no-cost after school care, and have extended family members with the time and resources to help take care of them. This is exactly what a lot of people in the inner city don't have and when they make a mistake like having an unplanned pregnancies, or dropping out of school, or getting arrested for a minor offense, they're usually ****ed and can't recover from it.

Areas like these need a stronger social safety net; better schools, affordable daycare, accessible healthcare/contraception would likely have a huge impact over the long term. The sad thing now is that impoverished areas are in an even worse state due to the economic downturn. Joblessness, empty food pantries, evictions, higher COVID transmission rates, and little to no medical care is destroying poor, black neighborhoods, so it doesn't surprise me that violence is on the rise.

Kind of OT, but I was listening to NPR over the weekend and there was a segment where people were basically just ranting about the shutdown and the disruption of their regular lives. I get it that people are depressed and feeling isolated and can totally relate, but goddamn, just be glad that you're healthy and can pay your bills. We're on the verge of having millions in this country dealing with some combination of homelessness, hunger, and/or serious illness and (white) people are out protesting about relatively mundane **** like haircuts.