Abortion cuts the crime rate?

Question

One of the best selling books of last year is "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Levitt and Dubner. One theory of the book has been Levitt's theory that legalizing abortion has cut the crime rate, not factors such as better policing and tougher sentencing guidelines. The theory is that most abortions are sought by poor single mothers of poor education and means. The aborted babies had great potential for becoming criminals: sub-class, drug and alcohol abuse, poor schools and dangerous environments. Therefore, after Roe vs. Wade, abortions became widely and easily available. The underclass then took advantage and abortions increased.

Seems to me that this theory is biased and a clever use of statistics. The answer is too simplistic.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

I agree. They're stereotyping people that have abortions as people that are poor and single moms. That it definitely not always the case.

Many poor people have gave birth to great leaders. Lyndon Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman... our world would definitely be different if they would have been aborted!

Answer 2

I heard a story a while ago about a government agency set up to lend a helping hand, they asked so many questions and did the contract writing. Just sign on this line and the next pages where the X is marked and we will send you the help you will need to care for your family. One by one the family members died under the care agreement signed into law. A much better place than on the streets infested with rats and wild dogs and so, under this new plan of dignity the family was laid to rest, one by one without a second thought they were kept in a garden plot, a place to plant the undesirables, a place no one will ever walk by, under the streets and under the rivers no one will ever know how the agency watched them grow in numbers to be thrown away...

Answer 3

Yeah I am pro-abortion, but thats just a horrible way of comparing the crime rate. Basically what she is saying is that you shouldn't give certain people a chance at life because of how they were brought into this world.

Answer 4

I think in cases where the woman is attacked by a preditor then I'd say that abortion would be ok, so look at what the woman has to live with for the rest of her life, she has been sentenced a Life sentence not in a jail cell where they feed you three times a day and get a better education, and even college courses..

But I then on the other hand think that rather your old or young and your out "playing the field" and an OPPS happens, I don't think that you should use Abortion as a Birth Control, thats just totally wrong...

Answer 5

To be very frank, I have not read the book "Freakonomics". I don't feel it is essential read it answer this question.

My first observation about the question is that the question itself is topsy-turvy.  Abortion is a crime in itself ! how can a crime be used to cut crimes, even if it can?

Secondly, the intrinsic view of this question is purely "Americo-Euro centric". Let me clarify that. In the world over, abortion as a technique is not being used to get rid of unwanted pregnancies of the under class females. But in large populations like in India and in China this technique is being used to get rid of babies after a s*x determination test and when the gender of the baby is ascertained as a female. Now tell me does the writer of freakenomics really support female foeticde?

Thirdly, the crime rate increase in any society is not a function of the size of its population, but it has a direct correlation with the responsibility coefficient or lack of it of the well to do in that society.

Any one who has five fingers can easily understand that all of them are not equal in size, so is the case with the standing of members of any society. Therefore. the well to do need to take responsibility to take care of the underpriveledged. In case if they do so, there would not be much scop for crime.

There is strong argument with data to support that, if just 300 richer  most indivuduals in the world are ready to part with 4 percent of their annual income as 'zakat' an (an obligatory islamic  give away, above certain level of annual income) there will not be even a single soul below poverty line. The crime rate in such a scenario would automatically come down. There is no need to resort to any abortions.

And finally also most importantly, unwanted pregnancies of the under class females or any one else for that matter,  itself is highly obnoxious and undesirable.  why? Most of such mishaps could be the results of seeking sexual pleasure without being ready to own up its possible consequences.

Why not legalise the relationship through a marriage. Or is the auther propegating freaking out in the form a book named 'freakonomics'?

Answer 6

if your a good person, it doesn't matter if you grow up in a tough neighborhood. if the mothers had any common sense they could give their kids a safer life by putting them up for adoption. Better yet they could wait until they're  married to have s*x like the bible tells us to.abortion is murder and no argument can prove otherwise.

Answer 7

This is a rework of Eugenics: the pseudo-science that was popular in the US and Western Europe in the early 20th Century. That is, populations can be "improved" through selective breeding, including reducing the birthrate among the "unwashed" masses, or underclass.

The pseudo-science was popular among racists who could now "prove" that Africans had smaller brains and and were suited to manual labor. It also led to the n***s justifying the classification of Jewish people as under-menchen / sub human.

So as you can probably guess, I am not in favor of Eugenics. Also, I do agree with you that the Freakonomics theory paraphrased above is a gross simplification. There are many factors involved in the outcomes quoted.

Answer 8

Oh, I know completely on what you're talking about.  I read that book about a month ago and came upon that assertion.  Upon reading it, I couldn't believe it.  I still can't.  I can see why they say it that way though.

They believe that most abortions are by poor mothers, correct?  Well, I don't know the statistics on that.  I'm a sociologist and I've studied economics before and based on what I know, I don't think Levitt and Dubner are correct.  They are proposing an idea that has correlation but not a solid connection.  I agree that crime tends to be higher in areas that are poor and that a lot of crime is committed by those who are living in poverty.

However, saying that abortion will prevent and reduce crime is a mistake.  Sure, I know they said that crime had went down with adults who were born/newborns around the time that abortion was made legal- Roe v. Wade.  However, that doesn't mean that abortion was the cause.  There are many possibilities for crime being reduced- more police presence, a controversial theory about more incarceration bringing down crime, and maybe even improvements in neighborhood.  So, Levitt's theory is unproven.  He's going to do a lot more convincing to get me to believe him.  He wrote an interesting and fun book, but his ideas about abortion reducing crime is inaccurate and just promoted due to its probable correlation (but it doesn't cause reduce crimes).

Answer 9

i agree with you. i don't know whether the book also contains details about the type of crime that has diminished. the connection may be true, but it's an overstatement to call it a theory...

one should also consider other factors - innumerable - that influence crime rates, anything from economical, educational, political, environmental factors.

i don't like this theory...i'll get back to you later if i have other thoughts :)