Hmmm...
"In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion permissible throughout the United States. The floodgates opened, and vast numbers of abortions were performed. As a result, vast numbers of children were not born.
Ah, but which children? The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.
In other words, the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.
The crime rates began falling exactly when that generation of children would have reached adolescence and those with such tendencies would have begun their criminal careers.
It certainly looked as if we killed off much of our criminal class in the womb."
link
Some sort of empirical data to support the assertions I've emphasized in bold text would be most welcome.
Is it safe to assume you accept the Guttmacher Institute as a credible and unbiased source of statistical information on the issue?
Because here are Guttmacher's findings:
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-four percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.[3]
Each year, two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[4]
About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third will have had an abortion by age 45.[5]
WHO HAS ABORTIONS
Fifty-two percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.[6]
Black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.[7]
Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[8]
Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.[9]
Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had one or more children.[10]
The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).[11]*
On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[12] link
I don't see anything in this hard data that would necessarily
support this "culling out those with genetically undesirable characteristics" theory, and I see much that potentially refutes it.
The fact that over half of all American women have experienced an unplanned pregnancy makes me skeptical of theories linking abortion to "poor impulse control" in one or more parents.
The fact that over 60% of women who terminate pregnancies already have one or more children, and that over 75% cite their reason for aborting as "concern for or responsibility to other individuals" deepens my skepticism for this "bad blood" theory.
Of this paragraph "
The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.", I've seen no empirical data supporting statement one, and I've never seen data even remotely suggesting statements two or three.
These all sound like common
assumptions, common stereotypes, about women who terminate pregnancies, but they are hard to swallow in light of the fact that
fully a quarter of ALL pregnancies in the United States end in abortion.
I'm not saying I
wouldn't swallow these allegations, if provided with some sort of credible evidence to support them.
But as of yet, I've never seen any such evidence.
According to this "bad blood" theory of abortion and crime, I guess we all ought to be grateful rather than horrified that Andrea Yates retroactively aborted all five of her offspring (which included four males) by drowning them in the bath tub; they probably would've grown up to be psychotic killers, just like her.
I
like this "abortion lowers crime" theory, by the way; that's why I'm examining it critically.
I'd like to use it
myself, but won't, unless I'm sure it will hold up under scrutiny.
For starters, the easy dismissal of women who terminate pregnancies (and the men who impregnated them) as genetically, biologically inferior/ socially undesirable smacks of baseless assumption.
Like I said, provide statistics.
Prove that "substantial numbers of these women are addicts"
Prove that "The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father". (hint: being pregnant and unmarried, especially at a young age, is not empirical proof that, if born, your child will "be raised without a father").
Prove that "the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control."
Statistics on this? What is "somewhat more likely"? What criterion is used to define "poor impulse control"? What does "liaison" mean, in this context?
Evidence that these pregnancies were the result of 'liaisons"? Statistics pointing to "poor impulse control" in either partner?
Really, with this theory, nobody should ever adopt, because all these same stereotypes are applied to women who relinquish children for adoption, as well as women who terminate pregnancies. And won't those relinquished children, once adopted, also grow up to embody all of these genetically and socially undesirable traits and characteristics? Who the hell would want such a child?
A lot of people do, as it turns out.
That's because most people believe that environment is a more important factor in what sort of person one will become than heredity is.
They feel a child raised in a good environment will prosper regardless of genetics.
Conversely, it stands to reason that a child raised in a poor environment will more than likely fail to prosper, regardless of genetics.
And that brings me to
my theory on the matter (a sort of modified version of Freakonomics theory), which I already outlined on your other thread. At the risk of being redundant, I'll repost it here:
"It makes practical sense that the fewer children a woman has, the more of her resources she can devote to each, and that this is particularly pertinent to women in the lower socioeconomic demographics, whose resources are limited to begin with and can be spread too thin by multiple offspring, resulting in children whose needs are not consistently met."
That's my theory.
So, yes, I do theoretically and tentatively believe that legalized abortion has played a role in reducing crime.
But not because genetically inferior, socially undesirable elements are performing a kind of voluntarily self-eugenics.
If abortion has reduced crime, it's because mothers with only one or two children and finite physical, emotional, and material resources (and really, whose resources
aren't finite?) are able to devote more of those resources to each child when they only have two or three children than when they have eight or nine. When they have large numbers of offspring, resources are divided accordingly, with each individual child getting a lesser share than they would've if they'd been an only child, or a child with only one sibling. And often in a large family, these resources simply aren't enough, and children's needs go unmet.
Children whose needs are consistently unmet tend to grow up to be unproductive members of society.
So that's my theory on abortion and crime, and I'm sure- as you seem to be an intelligent person- you'll appreciate the ways in which it subtly differs from the one promoted by the author/s of freakonomics.
In my theory, parents are not "bad" but overextended and undersupported. Certain social changes could alleviate some of that, could provide them with support and resources that would help them make ends meet.
In my theory, children are not prone to criminal activity because their parents are deviant, drug-addicted sleazebags, but because their parents- although possibly decent, hardworking, and well-intentioned- are nevertheless unable to meet all of the child's needs because they simply do not have the resources to do so.
Freakonomics apparently sees this as a largely
genetic issue, whereas I see it as more of a socioeconomic one.
None of the empirical data I've encountered, and none of my anecdotal evidence, support the idea that women who terminate pregnancies are possessed of "inferior" genes, that would be passed on to any offspring they might produce.
Either way, I guess the end result is the same, though; both contraception and abortion allow women to control their fertility, limit the number of offspring they produce, and space their pregnancies.
This is good, not only for women but also for children, and for society in general, because happy, emotionally healthy children whose needs are consistently met often grow into productive, self-sufficient, and emotionally healthy adults.
Re: Abortion and Crime 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
