Freakonomics: What happened to all the criminals?

[bennylava]

Has anyone read this book?
I was going to link to it but I'm not allowed to yet.

In one of the chapters, the author asserts that the crime wave that sociologists predicted would happen in the 90's was thwarted by Roe v. Wade. He argues that since unwanted children are the most likely to end up as criminals, that legalizing abortion prevented those people from ever being born, which resulted in a reduction in crime in the 90's, when those people would have been in their 20's.

The question would then be, if you do believe that is true, was it worth it?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not true. There's no way to prove the claim that aborted children would end up as criminal. It's just another way to devalue children, put forth by the anti-child, pro-abortion set.

 

[bennylava]

The author himself says that this is not a justification for abortion, and that the true answer would be to help the children who are most likely at risk to become criminals.

He is merely pointing out a cause and effect relationship.

Personally, I buy his case but I think it's a sad state of affairs that we in this country have neglected those who are need our help the most.

I also would like to point out that prochoice does not equal pro-abortion or anti-child. I hate abortion, I hate that people feel they have no other choice, but I will stand up for the right of women to do it if they feel it is neccessary. and I absolutely love children. I have one of my own.

 

[AllieBaba]

That may be what he says, but the proof is in the pudding. He's pointing out a cause and effect relationship but there's no proof that it really is a cause and effect relationship..other than his own bias.

 

[bennylava]

I could try to retype the entire chapter, but how do you know that until you read it?
And might I add that liberals were also outraged at the time by this? He really doesn't have any bias either way in the matter, other than a love of statistics and sociology/economics.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know that because I'm really, really smart.

I also have heard this insane argument before, and it falls flat because there is no research (how could there be?) that proves it.

It's simply the musings of someone who wants to justify abortion and ultimately, eugenics.

 

[Shogun]

HA!


Well, maybe not really, really smart but certainly really, really funny!

 

[AllieBaba]

Humor and intelligence go hand in hand....

 

[bennylava]

A well constructed argument, indeed.

 

[jillian]

Humor and intelligence go hand in hand....

where did he say you were being intentionally funny. maybe he's just laughing at you.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. that must be were racist jokes come from. intelligence.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or maybe not.

 

[Shogun]

I still think you are a doll, Alliekins...

 

[bennylava]

Anyhoozle.......

 

[AllieBaba]

Anyhooz, there's no proof or any credible evidence that even remotely supports the statement that aborted children would some day turn into criminals.

It's an asinine theory, and doesn't stand. If you think it does, provide some backup. Other than "this guy says so".

 

[bennylava]

Well for one thing, children who grow up in poverty and in a one parent household are twice as likely to end up in the pen. Now if you take away millions of those kids who would have been born to poor teenage women, there you go.

Part of his argument is that before R v. W, there were still abortions. Middle class and wealthy teens who got pregnant could afford to arrange illegal abortions or travel to places where abortion was legal. So when it became legal, it was the poorer women who were able to gain access to abortion.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, I've heard this argument before. It's an old one. In fact, what's her dick, the chick who started Planned Parenthood, used it as a selling point when she was trying to justify the enforced sterilization of "undesirables", i.e., poor or minority women.

But it doesn't wash. Just because they are more likely to be criminal doesn't justify killing them before you know.

Besides...I was under the impression that abortion stats don't support the "mostly poor, ignorant, undesirable" women claim.

 

[Bern80]

Well for one thing, children who grow up in poverty and in a one parent household are twice as likely to end up in the pen. Now if you take away millions of those kids who would have been born to poor teenage women, there you go.

The only way that argument flies is if one accepts the assumption that only poor women have abortions. What are the chances that's true?

You also commented you hate abortion by stand by a woman's right to choose if she feels it's necessary. In fact what she feels is irrelevant where necessity is concerned. Something is either necessary or it isn't. If an abortion is neccessary for the mother to live, fine. Above and beyond that, what circumstances are there that it becomes neccessary to abort?

 

[Shogun]

Id say that a pregnancy derived from a RAPE is a valid choice for abortion..

However, I would also say that abortion as merely a method of birth control is not.

 

[bennylava]

And yet, if we made abortion legal only in cases of rape, who decides when a rape has occurred? How many men would be wrongly accused of it? Do you know how hard it is to prove that a rape has occurred already?
Also most people who are prolife believe that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a person who is already born. If that is true, does the behavior of the father really matter? A person is a person. If they really believe that a zygote/embryo/fetus is an equal person, how that person was conceived SHOULD have no bearing on whether it is ok to end the pregnancy or not.
To me it seems like it has more to do with whether the woman committed a sin or not, which is just a ridiculous way to decide whether she should be in control of her reproduction or not.

Again, I assert it is possible to discuss something that another person wrote without agreeing with it.