Abortion Stops Crime

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 22 Jan 2006 13:48

Wow am I gonna get flamed for this one!!!!

I am currently reading a book called Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, and have come across an interesting and contreversialo theory of his.

In the late 80's and early 90's there was a huge spike in the amount of crimes being perpetrated on American soil. Police and government officials warned that as the decade continued it would get worse and worse. As you can see by this chart and many other resources on my reference site, crime actually plummeted! Why?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

It all involved one case in the supreme court about 25 years ago.

That case was Roe vs Wade.......

The demographics for those most likely to be criminals is males in their late teens. Demographics also show that the likelyhood of being a criminal is increased by factors such as being raised by a single parent, being raised in a home below the poverty line and being raised by a parent with little to no education.

These are many of the factors which women consider when thinking about abortion.

Because women in the seventies began to NOT give birth when they were poor, unmarried and in compromising social situations, less "unwanted" or "unplanned" children were born. Leading to less teens in these situations coming to their criminal peak in the mid-nineties.

Please attempt to debate this.....i'm not saying i like this theory, but sadly it appears to be true.

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jan 2006 13:53

Unfortuatley it does make sense . . . that said: I don't think that commiting one crime (I consider killing a human to be a crime) in order to POSSIBLY prevent one in the future is a good idea.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Jan 2006 14:13

Freakanomics is a really cool book. The chapter about the crack dealers was muy interesante.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 22 Jan 2006 14:20

Agreed....I just wanted to put this particular theory out there, as it is one of the most contreversial themes in the book. This Levitt guy is a freakin' genius!!!

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 22 Jan 2006 14:28

I remember realizing that same thing several years ago. Very intriguing, and a justification for pro-choice advocates.

sen wrote:Unfortuatley it does make sense . . . that said: I don't think that commiting one crime (I consider killing a human to be a crime) in order to POSSIBLY prevent one in the future is a good idea.

However, along a different vein, single parents usually end up in poverty and forced to work long hours in bad conditions to support their child. As a result, they are unable to secure a decent education and consequently a decent future. So, to some extent, you can have an abortion, and kill one creature, or you can force the person to have a baby, and likely result in ruining two people's lives. At least, that's been my philosophy on the matter.

I guess there's probably a thread about abortion already, so sorry for kinda going off-topic.

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jan 2006 15:01

i was raised by a single parent. I'm happy I'm alive and wasn't killed to make things easy . . . that would have sucked.

My mom worked hard so that my sister and I would have a decent life. We lived below the poverty level in Canada alot of the time, but we always managed and none of us turned to crime as a solution.

I guess if the person is strong enough to deal with the situation there is no problem.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 22 Jan 2006 18:35

sen wrote:Unfortuatley it does make sense . . . that said: I don't think that commiting one crime (I consider killing a human to be a crime) in order to POSSIBLY prevent one in the future is a good idea.

Fetus maybe?

I think people need to stop debating and figure out when life really begins

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jan 2006 19:03

I didn't want to debate, I was just stating my view on the matter.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 22 Jan 2006 19:09

I want you to debate!!!! Thats why this section exists!!!!

Remember that this was not the intended cause of the abortion laws in the US. It was just an un-expected benefit!

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jan 2006 19:18

So, who wants to step up and debate then?

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 22 Jan 2006 21:28

sen wrote:So, who wants to step up and debate then?

You called

I would go with...when the baby has a heartbeat

sen · Post by **sen** » 22 Jan 2006 21:35

“For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, As my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you When I was made in secret, When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.” (Psalms 139:13-16, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)

If our creater thinks of us as living in the embryo stage, then why shouldn't we?

If you don't believe in God then we would need to discuss that first.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 23 Jan 2006 10:08

This is a great debate topic, with a few angles for me to get flamed on

.

I think I heard that Freankanomics guy as a guest on a radio show a couple weeks back. I should get the book.

I'll compose something and post back quick.

-n

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 23 Jan 2006 11:30

sen wrote:If you don't believe in God then we would need to discuss that first.

Hebrew Scriptures for me

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 23 Jan 2006 11:33

Wow, I kinda want to semi-flame Slowsis on this one right away. But he didn't write the theory.

Did the violent crime really go down, because there were all those abortions?

Will abortions for the reasons given (poverty, single-mothers, etc) be supported?

I can tell you what kind of crimes against humanity we can all start justifing easily.

But ,It would be more fun to go with what has caused the uproar already. I'll argue the insignifigance of Big Abortion's effect on crime rates later.

A well known,conservative figure was a guest on the radio recently(Bennett, I think) , perhaps discussing this exact topic.
Was abortion benefically in reducing crime?

Perhaps taken out of context, it was implied that he was saying that high rates of abortions in the black communty, meant a lot less crime.

I ignored whatever uproar happened after that, but i'll put out these statements, and Slowsis, or anyone else , can say whether they agree with the logic. I think the first 2 have general statistical acceptance.

a. Blacks have a very high abortion rate compared to other races.

b. Blacks have a higher crime rates, compared to some other races.

c. Blacks having abortions reduces the number of poor, teenage males you described earlier.

d. Blacks' high abortion rate is good thing for the crime rate; Blacks' high abortion rate is good thing.

e. Black people overall, should continue to have abortions , thus reducing their population growth,if they live in poverty.

I think the Black abortion rate should be considered genocide, or ethnic cleansing (which are not the same incidentally). You could call it a self-genocide. And there are ,many white people of power, and influence, who work relentlessly (perhaps unconsciously) making sure that American blacks have access to their own destruction.

I want to include a quote from Maragaret Sanger, but I cant find it right now.

I don't believe that abortions cut the crime rates, even if it did, it's a death cult.... that ill detail in my next post.

-n

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 23 Jan 2006 12:18

HighDemonslayer wrote: a. Blacks have a very high abortion rate compared to other races.

b. Blacks have a higher crime rates, compared to some other races.

c. Blacks having abortions reduces the number of poor, teenage males you described earlier.

d. Blacks' high abortion rate is good thing for the crime rate; Blacks' high abortion rate is good thing.

e. Black people overall, should continue to have abortions , thus reducing their population growth,if they live in poverty.

I think the Black abortion rate should be considered genocide, or ethnic cleansing (which are not the same incidentally). You could call it a self-genocide. And there are ,many white people of power, and influence, who work relentlessly (perhaps unconsciously) making sure that American blacks have access to their own destruction.

-n

This is irrelevant, as abortion is not controlled by anyone but the mother who is choosing to abort. Can the government be blamed that it happens to be blacks who find themselves more often in this situation?

Possibly, but that is a social equity question.....which actually might have a lot to do with this topic.....

Also not only did violent crime go down....but ALL crime went down (browse around my link....there's a lot of info there, all accepted by the US government).

Abortions are now free choice, so a woman is MORE likely to abort in the circumstance of poverty or being single. Given the fact that children in these situations are MORE likely to become criminals, it just adds up. A smaller pool of POTENTIAL criminals were entering the world.

The reason for a woman to abort is never because she is worried that her child may become a criminal, but because her child will be raised in a compromising situation. The fact that no one foresaw this effect is IMO because people assume that everyone has a similar potential to become a criminal before they are born.

This is an extension of the nature vs nurture debate. All fetuses have a similar chance of becoming a criminal when you don't take into consideration where they are going to be born. It is simply a coincidence that the conditions which assist criminal development are the same conditions which cause women to abort.

The real question is does this give any extra credibility to a woman's choice to abort? That she does not want to contribute to social decay by introducing children into this world, which will only help in its corruption?

If so, then are women in the situations listed above irresponsible for bringing potentially criminals into the world?

(P.S. these are just ideas....don't attack me, attack the morality of these statements)

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 23 Jan 2006 12:22

HighDemonslayer wrote:
Did the violent crime really go down, because there were all those abortions?

This is the key question.

Just because there is a general correlation between two groups of statistics does not mean there is a causal relationship between the two.

Let's take for example this made-up pair of facts.

1.From 1995 to the present, the number of guiltless freestylers has increased from 35, to 350. There are 10 times more guiltless freestylers today, than there were in 1995.

2. The number of people who drive cars with mileage of less than 5 mpg has increased ten times since 1995.

Both of these facts reflect trends that have increased tenfold during the period from 1995-2006. But neither one caused the other. It's just a coincidental fact. If I proposed that the best way to spread freestyle footbag to the world, would be to pass a law saying you could only buy Hummers in America, y'all would think I'm crazy.

From the looks of it, the Levitt argument doesn't look to have much research to back it up, other than the fact that 2 trends superficially share some similarities. If I wanted to, and had the time, I could easily make any kind of racist/pro-life/prochoice/homophobic claim that I felt like, and then look for other trends which would support it.

I'm pretty unimpressed.

sen · Post by **sen** » 23 Jan 2006 12:35

TheVindicator wrote:
sen wrote:If you don't believe in God then we would need to discuss that first.
Hebrew Scriptures for me

Umm, ok . . . the quote I gave was from the Hebrew Scriptures . . .

Did I miss the point there?

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 23 Jan 2006 12:35

C-Fan wrote:From the looks of it, the original argument in the first post of this thread doesn't look to have much research to back it up, other than the fact that 2 trends superficially share some similarities.

I'm sure Harvard professors are never required to research their findings!

This is not some theory i put together myself (though i wish i had the qualifications to get paid to spend my time doing this), and unless you would care to provide some statistics which prove that poor, single, uneducated mothers give birth to LESS criminals, you comment is nothing but un-supported skepticism.

Also I addressed the fact that there is the potential for racism.....why did you have to bring it up? It is absolutely irrelevant unless YOU are implying that people of a certain race have more criminal tendencies, which I assume you are not.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 23 Jan 2006 12:50

Slowsis wrote:unless you would care to provide some statistics which prove that poor, single, uneducated mothers give birth to LESS criminals, youR comment is nothing but un-supported skepticism.
.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you or the book you are quoting, and not on me. When somebody makes a controversial/outrageous claim, in general THEY are expected to support the claim, not ask for the rest of the world to prove them wrong.