The Freakonomics Fiasco in Perspective - Page 2

shuamort · 07-15-08, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

You state that as if anyone is claiming that cutting crime is the main purpose of abortion. What point if any did you try to make?

Actually, the author of Freakonomics' claim was that with the legalization of abortion from Roe v Wade, crime went down and it was therefore correlative.

Scucca · 07-15-08, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

Actually, the author of Freakonomics' claim was that with the legalization of abortion from Roe v Wade, crime went down and it was therefore correlative.

What I'd like to see is an anti-choice fellow provide a critique of the theory used to promote the abortion-crime link. That would be spiffing

DarkWizard12 · 07-15-08, 06:39 PM

I have a question to all those of the anti-life.

Supposedly, abortion rates were the SAME whether or not they were legal. That was one of the justifications for it, that women are going to get abortions and that by keeping them illegal, abortions were unsafe.

So, if abortion rates where the same, wouldn't crime rates be the same also? This is why I think, anti-life people ought to get rid of Levitt's theory because it shoots the theory that "abortion rates were the same, just unsafe before legalization" in the foot.

Scucca · 07-15-08, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Supposedly, abortion rates were the SAME whether or not they were legal. That was one of the justifications for it, that women are going to get abortions and that by keeping them illegal, abortions were unsafe.

The available analysis does tend to support the hypothesis that restrictions on abortion availability reduces the number of abortions. Demand just cannot be eliminated by morality coercion. Thus, we'd still get a deterioration in mortality and morbidity via the 'unsafe' abortion market.

We therefore share out the misery between those that go ahead with an unwanted pregnancy and those that suffer from a reduction in the quality of health care

DarkWizard12 · 07-15-08, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

The available analysis does tend to support the hypothesis that restrictions on abortion availability reduces the number of abortions. Demand just cannot be eliminated by morality coercion. Thus, we'd still get a deterioration in mortality and morbidity via the 'unsafe' abortion market.

We therefore share out the misery between those that go ahead with an unwanted pregnancy and those that suffer from a reduction in the quality of health care

the number of abortions were the same, whether or not they were legal? So why did the crime number change at all? Unless abortion has nothing to do with abortion?

prometeus · 07-15-08, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

Actually, the author of Freakonomics' claim was that with the legalization of abortion from Roe v Wade, crime went down and it was therefore correlative.

Correlative is fine, what is important is that the motive for keeping abortions safe and legal has nothing to do with crime rates, NOTHING AT ALL.

prometeus · 07-15-08, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

I have a question to all those of the anti-life.

Supposedly, abortion rates were the SAME whether or not they were legal. That was one of the justifications for it, that women are going to get abortions and that by keeping them illegal, abortions were unsafe.

So, if abortion rates where the same, wouldn't crime rates be the same also? This is why I think, anti-life people ought to get rid of Levitt's theory because it shoots the theory that "abortion rates were the same, just unsafe before legalization" in the foot.

It only shoots anti-rationale along with anti-choice down. Abortions were never counted for crime statistics, no matter how much women haters wished.

Scucca · 07-16-08, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

the number of abortions were the same, whether or not they were legal? So why did the crime number change at all? Unless abortion has nothing to do with abortion?

You'd expect legalisation to increase abortion rates, particularly with the use of public sector subsidies to minimise price.

Are you perhaps confusing yourself with short run and long run effects? For example, with the elimination of legal abortions I'd expect the crime effects to gradually decline (as the illegal abortion market adapts and maximises the available abortion numbers)