The Aborted Crime Wave?

(and everyone thought it was Clinton and Giuliani)
Now old but still good:

THE ABORTED CRIME WAVE?
A controversial article links the recent drop in crime to the legalization of abortion two decades ago
By Marguerite Holloway
Dec 1999/Scientific American
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/pdf/1123_clip.pdf

Since the early 1990s crime has fallen annually in the U.S., last year by about 7%. Many explanations have been put forward for this drop: more police walk the beat, more people are in prison, the economy has improved, crack use has fallen, alarms and guards are now widespread. The emphasis given to any one of these rationales varies, of course, according to philosophical bent or political expediency. In New York City, for instance, plummeting crime has been attributed to improved policing. Yet the decline exists even in cities that have not altered their approach, such as Los Angeles.

The above explanations are unsatisfactory to many researchers, among them two economists who have studied crime. Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago and John J. Donohue III, currently at Yale University, have proffered an alternative reason: the legalization of abortion in 1973 reduced the number of unwanted children--that is, children more likely to become criminals. In 1992, the first year crime began to fall, the first set of children born after 1973 turned 18. Because most crimes are committed by young adult males between the ages of 18 and 24, Levitt and Donohue argue that the absence of millions of unwanted children led to fewer crimes being done by that age group. In total, the researchers maintain, the advent of legal abortion may be responsible for up to 50% of the drop in crime.
[.............]
Indeed, Levitt and Donohue are not the first to connect crime and abortion. As they note in their paper, a former Minneapolis police chief made the same suggestion several years ago. But they are the first to examine data to determine whether there could be a correlation. They looked at how crime rates differed for states that legalized abortion before the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade: New York, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. In those states, crime began to drop a few years before it did in the rest of the country, and states with higher abortion rates have had steeper drops in crime. Fewer unwanted children, the two conclude, ultimately means fewer crimes.

Image: Sarah L. Donelson
CRIME RATES dropped after 1991, just when children born after Roe v. Wade would be reaching 18.

[....................] The rest at Link above

Click to expand...

interesting

Well this certainly seems to confirm what many pro-choice people have been saying for years: that unwanted children are far more likely to be a burden on society than children born into happy family environments. However, it does raise a concern about whether this might be seen by some as a reason to promote abortion, as a means to keep crime in check. While I support the right for women to choose, I would personally rather it remained generally discouraged and kept as an option of last resort.

This is the first time I've seen this study, but not the first time I've heard similar arguments put forward.

It is actually one of the few things that puts a chink in my opposition to abortion. I've stated before that I don't believe a woman's right to choose outweighs the right to life of the unborn baby... no need to rehash that in this thread, the opposing points have been beaten to death in other threads already.

But the notion that most of the aborted babies are children that would have grown up to be useless or even criminal adults; who would mostly have been on welfare, in poverty, on drugs, perpetuating the class of non-contributing citizens, or living as criminals; and generally having miserable lives likely to be puncuated by incarceration or ended by early death from their "lifestyles", not to mention creating misery for others... these are arguments that do make some impact on me.

I still oppose abortion and that's not likely to change... the idea of killing what I consider unborn babies turns my stomach regardless of the justification, except in certain rare cases where the life of the mother is actually in unusual peril.

However, the concept that many or most of these aborted unborns are being spared a life of misery and evil does give me some pause.

I am a Christian who believes in the doctrine that infants are under Grace, being too young to comprehend good and evil. I therefore believe that aborted infants' souls go directly to be with God in heaven. The notion that many, or possibly most, of those children might have lived and grown up only to be damned as adults is a daunting counterpoint that I've thought about before. While such concerns might seem silly to many nonChristians, it is a very serious matter to me. Whether this constitutes some kind of "excuse" for over a million abortioned babies a year is something I'll have to think about further.

At any rate, the study is intresting, thank you for posting it.


G.

Goshin said:

I still oppose abortion and that's not likely to change... the idea of killing what I consider unborn babies turns my stomach regardless of the justification, except in certain rare cases where the life of the mother is actually in unusual peril.

Click to expand...

It is rather distasteful, especially considering how easily it can be avoided, isn't it?

Goshin said:

I am a Christian who believes in the doctrine that infants are under Grace, being too young to comprehend good and evil. I therefore believe that aborted infants' souls go directly to be with God in heaven. The notion that many, or possibly most, of those children might have lived and grown up only to be damned as adults is a daunting counterpoint that I've thought about before.

Click to expand...

Cuts right to the heart of Christian theology.

I would suppose that the question you have to answer for yourself is what the point of life-- and specifically, bringing more life into the world-- is; is the point to deliver more blessed souls into God's arms, or is it to raise more virtuous men and women to live in this world? What was God's purpose in commanding the faithful to be fruitful and multiply?

Personally, I would think that it's the latter.

Korimyr the Rat said:

It is rather distasteful, especially considering how easily it can be avoided, isn't it?



Cuts right to the heart of Christian theology.

I would suppose that the question you have to answer for yourself is what the point of life-- and specifically, bringing more life into the world-- is; is the point to deliver more blessed souls into God's arms, or is it to raise more virtuous men and women to live in this world? What was God's purpose in commanding the faithful to be fruitful and multiply?

Personally, I would think that it's the latter.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. In scripture Christians are "called to be salt and light to the world", two things that were valued in that time period; salt giving a "savor" to one's food, while the need for light (and its metaphorical meanings) being fairly obvious. While some might dispute whether Christiandom has fulfilled that commission very well or not, (I'm saying it before someone else does, lol), that is the spiritual purpose in perpetuating human life.

From this perspective I would suppose the great tragedy of abortion to be that these persons never have the chance to choose, or to act, or to serve. They will never know the sorrows of life, but neither will they know the joys. Many will be spared a life of misery and evil, but surely a fair number will also be denied a life of love and service, goodness and compassion.

While I could never personally endorse abortion (unless the life of of the mother is unusually endangered), if I had reason to believe that the vast majority of aborted children would have grown up to be bad people with miserable lives and little hope of heaven, I might moderate my opposition somewhat. However, I doubt that is something we could ever know with confidence. The study in the OP seems to indicate that perhaps half of the aborted's would have grown up to commit crime; what about the other half?

There are times when determining what is right, can be difficult.


G.

Antagony said:

Well this certainly seems to confirm what many pro-choice people have been saying for years: that unwanted children are far more likely to be a burden on society than children born into happy family environments. However, it does raise a concern about whether this might be seen by some as a reason to promote abortion, as a means to keep crime in check. While I support the right for women to choose, I would personally rather it remained generally discouraged and kept as an option of last resort.

Click to expand...

The real lesson here is that one's environment plays a HUGE role in what they will become when they grow up. If crime goes down because fewer people are raised in adverse conditions, it gives a lot of weight to the liberal mindset of trying to help the least among us, because in general, this sort of tragic life is what liberals are fighting against.

megaprogman said:

The real lesson here is that one's environment plays a HUGE role in what they will become when they grow up. If crime goes down because fewer people are raised in adverse conditions, it gives a lot of weight to the liberal mindset of trying to help the least among us, because in general, this sort of tragic life is what liberals are fighting against.

Click to expand...

The counter-argument then becomes: whether the kinds of programs typically advanced by liberals actually help those living in adverse conditions, or perpetuate their povery and lack of self-respect through dependency.

I tend to think the latter.

Goshin said:

The counter-argument then becomes: whether the kinds of programs typically advanced by liberals actually help those living in adverse conditions, or perpetuate their povery and lack of self-respect through dependency.

I tend to think the latter.

Click to expand...

I think its some of both actually. To say they are totally successful or totally unsuccessful is intellectually dishonest.

good ole eugenics; it never really goes away.

cpwill said:

good ole eugenics; it never really goes away.

Click to expand...

I was just about to post How delighted I was with the discussion.

I've posted it before and those against abortion can take offense, AS IF this advocates abortion.
It does NOT.

"The work "is Not Proscriptive, but Descriptive," Levitt maintains. "Neither of us has an agenda with regard to abortion."

It does however have implications for Public Policy.

Those not wanting Public Funding for abortion should be aware that giving that funding may be the most cost effective Dollar the Govt has EVER spent.
By a factor of 100.
Aside from Condoms, there is NO return on money even in Hedge Funds or selliing Drugs, that can and Has yielded 10,000+% returns.
A $1000 abortion Could easily save up to $1,000,000 (Welfare, Short schooling, Decades in Prisons, Less Police, Jails, Courts, etc) if the child is born in unwanted/unafforded circumstance.

No Public funding for abortion, in fact, only robs poor women of the option; it doesn't stop abortion for those who could afford it, or also afford their children.

In any case special thx, So far, to those who are against abortion but have treated this soberly. This is such a hot button issue and people can, without a smiley emoticon, start yelling "Eugenics", "Nazi", etc.
-

mbig said:

"The work "is Not Proscriptive, but Descriptive," Levitt maintains. "Neither of us has an agenda with regard to abortion."[/i]

It does however have implications for Public Policy.

Click to expand...

Levitt's a scientist. He is interested in the truth, and not interested in the implications. The implications of his findings are left for people like us to discuss-- like whether or not they're morally relevant, whether or not allowing abortion or even publically funding it are worth the price we would pay. There are other costs to consider besides money.

mbig said:

Those not wanting Public Funding for abortion should be aware that giving that funding may be the most cost effective Dollar the Govt has EVER spent.
By a factor of 100.

Click to expand...

This is eugenics in its purest, most effective form. How is it anything less?

Eugenics is not racism. Early eugenic programs were racist because the countries that implemented them-- primarily the US, the UK, and Germany-- were deeply racist, from the lowest citizens to the heads of state. They were heavy-handed and authoritarian because that was the nature of the governments of the time; this was before the global "war against fascism" and the radical liberalization of the Sixties and Seventies. It was before the entire West accepted en masse the notion that convicted criminals, the insane and the feebleminded had all of the same rights as upright citizens.

Eugenics is nothing more than the principle that healthy children make for a healthy society, and whatever policies are implemented in recognition of this principle.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Levitt's a scientist. He is interested in the truth, and not interested in the implications. The implications of his findings are left for people like us to discuss-- like whether or not they're morally relevant, whether or not allowing abortion or even publically funding it are worth the price we would pay. There are other costs to consider besides money.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

This is eugenics in its purest, most effective form. How is it anything less?

Eugenics is not racism. Early eugenic programs were racist because the countries that implemented them-- primarily the US, the UK, and Germany-- were deeply racist, from the lowest citizens to the heads of state. They were heavy-handed and authoritarian because that was the nature of the governments of the time; this was before the global "war against fascism" and the radical liberalization of the Sixties and Seventies. It was before the entire West accepted en masse the notion that convicted criminals, the insane and the feebleminded had all of the same rights as upright citizens.

Eugenics is nothing more than the principle that healthy children make for a healthy society, and whatever policies are implemented in recognition of this principle.

Click to expand...

Disagree.

Eugenics is selective breeding based on Race or other quality to improve the Gene pool.

I'm espousing giving women of ANY Race, IQ, or other trait, the ability to get an abortion, rather than just those who can afford it.
This is based on 'Unwantedness' Only, by the parent herself (with the Same gene pool ostensibly being 'Eugenized' out), not by anyone else.

I'm further asserting, the fact that as a strictly financial issue re Public Funding of such.. It's eXponentially the most effective dollar that can be spent by our govt.
There's nothing close.
-

I read that a couple of weeks ago, and all I could think, if it truly is a legitimate theory, is what a sad sad statement it is on our society in general.

mbig said:

Disagree.

Eugenics is selective breeding based on Race or other quality to improve the Gene pool.

I'm espousing giving women of ANY Race, IQ, or other trait, the ability to get an abortion, rather than just those who can afford it.
This is based on 'Unwantedness' Only, by the parent herself (with the Same gene pool ostensibly being 'Eugenized' out), not by anyone else.

I'm further asserting, the fact that as a strictly financial issue re Public Funding of such.. It's eXponentially the most effective dollar that can be spent by our govt.
There's nothing close.
-

Click to expand...

I believe most abortions are performed for low income unmarried women.

It's a type of eugenics that weeds out some of those who make poor choices in regards to income and sexual lifestyle.

I'm not 100% sure but mostly convinced that it reduces crime, now if we can only tax mothers who purposely have children outside of wedlock, with no ability to pay for the care of their child/children.

Maybe an after they reach adulthood tax.

Goshin said:

The counter-argument then becomes: whether the kinds of programs typically advanced by liberals actually help those living in adverse conditions, or perpetuate their povery and lack of self-respect through dependency.

I tend to think the latter.

Click to expand...

You mean programs such as free or affordable birth control for the poor and the young and extremely comprehensive sex education to students?

If the poor and the young had easier access to birth control and better sex education that would teach much more than "pure reproduction" that conservatives espouse, such as the costs and responsibilities of raising a child, then maybe we'd have fewer women getting abortions because we'd lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies.

mbig said:

(and everyone thought it was Clinton and Giuliani)
Now old but still good:

THE ABORTED CRIME WAVE?
A controversial article links the recent drop in crime to the legalization of abortion two decades ago
By Marguerite Holloway
Dec 1999/Scientific American
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/pdf/1123_clip.pdf

Click to expand...

There's only one problem with this thesis. We didn't eliminate the young. We simply replaced young americans......with young foreigners.....and crime still fell. So much for the idea of preemtive crime control. :roll:

Harry Guerrilla said:

I believe most abortions are performed for low income unmarried women.

It's a type of eugenics that weeds out some of those who make poor choices in regards to income and sexual lifestyle.

I'm not 100% sure but mostly convinced that it reduces crime, now if we can only tax mothers who purposely have children outside of wedlock, with no ability to pay for the care of their child/children.

Maybe an after they reach adulthood tax.

Click to expand...

That was always the idea behind abortion......to weed out the undesirables.

lizzie said:

I read that a couple of weeks ago, and all I could think, if it truly is a legitimate theory, is what a sad sad statement it is on our society in general.

Click to expand...

It's more an inditement of leftists and elitism.

Dutch said:

It's more an inditement of leftists and elitism.

Click to expand...

How so? Most leftists would have tried to help the families, not leave them in poverty where they had few choices, except crime.

mbig said:

(and everyone thought it was Clinton and Giuliani)
Now old but still good:

THE ABORTED CRIME WAVE?
A controversial article links the recent drop in crime to the legalization of abortion two decades ago
By Marguerite Holloway
Dec 1999/Scientific American
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/pdf/1123_clip.pdf

Click to expand...

given that the majority of abortions are performed on women with household incomes greater than 30k, i'm not so sure this correlation is true.

lizzie said:

I read that a couple of weeks ago, and all I could think, if it truly is a legitimate theory, is what a sad sad statement it is on our society in general.

Click to expand...

I don't know why it's a sad statement. It's simple science. The more people there are, the more scarce resources are. The more scarce resources are, the more likely people will break laws and customs in order to survive. Reduce the number of people fighting for resources, you reduce the scarcity of resources and you allow people to be less desperate for them, which will reduce crime.

Not everybody is meant to have a child. Not everybody should have a child. Not everybody is able to raise a well-adjusted child. Not everybody is able to raise their child to be sympathetic to the needs of others. Not everybody is able to raise their child to be a productive member of society. That's one (of many, I admit) reasons for crime.

Does that mean I think we should castrate all criminals and poor? Absolutely not. Not all crimes are just and poverty is a temporary state for most people. However, for those who are unable to take care of a child I believe that low-cost birth control for both men and women to easily access should be provided for.

For instance, one segment of the population who benefits greatly from low-cost birth control is college students. VERY few people in their early to mid 20's are in positions to take care of a newborn child. Most are off in college trying to learn their trade or get a degree for their occupation, and do so through scholarships and loans. Nowadays, having a deep committed relationship with a partner is difficult while going to university. It also puts on a larger financial burden and puts them deeper into debt. The last thing they need is to have a child to take care of when they are trying to get on their own and get in a position to take care of themselves. Therefore, cheap and easily accessed birth control, and an education on how to use it effectively, should be given to them.

Unlike the conservative stance on birth control, which is, "If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex."

mbig said:

(and everyone thought it was Clinton and Giuliani)
Now old but still good:

THE ABORTED CRIME WAVE?
A controversial article links the recent drop in crime to the legalization of abortion two decades ago
By Marguerite Holloway
Dec 1999/Scientific American
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/pdf/1123_clip.pdf

Click to expand...

IF the logic with that study is that unwanted kids commit more crimes then shouldn't most of the kids who grew up in orphanages,state's custody, group homes or adopted really late be criminals?

megaprogman said:

How so? Most leftists would have tried to help the families, not leave them in poverty where they had few choices, except crime.

Click to expand...

Crime has more to do with culture and less to do with poverty. Abortion has always been the left's answer to the poor.

samsmart said:

I don't know why it's a sad statement. It's simple science. The more people there are, the more scarce resources are. The more scarce resources are, the more likely people will break laws and customs in order to survive. Reduce the number of people fighting for resources, you reduce the scarcity of resources and you allow people to be less desperate for them, which will reduce crime.

Not everybody is meant to have a child. Not everybody should have a child. Not everybody is able to raise a well-adjusted child. Not everybody is able to raise their child to be sympathetic to the needs of others. Not everybody is able to raise their child to be a productive member of society. That's one (of many, I admit) reasons for crime.

Does that mean I think we should castrate all criminals and poor? Absolutely not. Not all crimes are just and poverty is a temporary state for most people. However, for those who are unable to take care of a child I believe that low-cost birth control for both men and women to easily access should be provided for.

For instance, one segment of the population who benefits greatly from low-cost birth control is college students. VERY few people in their early to mid 20's are in positions to take care of a newborn child. Most are off in college trying to learn their trade or get a degree for their occupation, and do so through scholarships and loans. Nowadays, having a deep committed relationship with a partner is difficult while going to university. It also puts on a larger financial burden and puts them deeper into debt. The last thing they need is to have a child to take care of when they are trying to get on their own and get in a position to take care of themselves. Therefore, cheap and easily accessed birth control, and an education on how to use it effectively, should be given to them.

Unlike the conservative stance on birth control, which is, "If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex."

Click to expand...

Only we aren't running out of resources here in this country, otherwise we would have closed our southern border decades ago.