Abortion lowers crime?

IllegalArgument · 14th July 2005, 09:00 AM

I recently got through listening to Freakonomics, dumb name but let it slide for now. Interesting book on the economics of the crack trade, real estate agents, and most controversial the link between abortion and lower crime.

Here's a link to the chapter excerpt on abortion and crime.
http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php

Here's an pdf of the study.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue...nd%20Levitt%20(2001).pdf

The short of it is, that the crime drop in 90s was caused, not by new policing programs or gun buy backs. The three main causes for the drop was, two smaller effects, longer jail terms and a bursting of the crack economic bubble, and one large effect abortion, reducing the number of at risk teens.

Of course, the study has been attacked from both sides, for promoting abortion or eugenics.

I'm not taking a side on this one, just curious what forum thinks and what you can add.

rdtjr · 14th July 2005, 11:47 AM

Hmmm, makes sense in a way. And that can be said without crying eugenics. Without even checking I'm 85% the folks crying eugenics are doing so in a knee-jerk way. If that is indeed the case I could make a great case that the cry is itself demonstrates highly racists thought processes.

Anyway.

Poor people are the most likely to commit crime.

Poor people are the most likely to have an abortion.

Having children one can't afford increases the likelihood of becoming or staying poor.

Abortions of unaffordable children helps families financially, which trends to fewer poor people.

Abortions for poor mothers results in fewer children born into poverty.

Abortions for poor mothers therefore means less poor children becoming poor adults and therefore fewer numbers of the population group most likely to commit a crime.

Abortions helps some families stay financially solvent resulting in fewer poor people resulting in a reduction of the group most likely to commit a crime.

It all makes sense.

I'm not sure I believe it, but it makes sense.

Grammatron · 14th July 2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdtjr
Hmmm, makes sense in a way. And that can be said without crying eugenics. Without even checking I'm 85% the folks crying eugenics are doing so in a knee-jerk way. If that is indeed the case I could make a great case that the cry is itself demonstrates highly racists thought processes.

Anyway.

Poor people are the most likely to commit crime.

Poor people are the most likely to have an abortion.

Having children one can't afford increases the likelihood of becoming or staying poor.

Abortions of unaffordable children helps families financially, which trends to fewer poor people.

Abortions for poor mothers results in fewer children born into poverty.

Abortions for poor mothers therefore means less poor children becoming poor adults and therefore fewer numbers of the population group most likely to commit a crime.

Abortions helps some families stay financially solvent resulting in fewer poor people resulting in a reduction of the group most likely to commit a crime.

It all makes sense.

I'm not sure I believe it, but it makes sense.

About your claim that poor people are the most likely to have an abortion, do you have some data for that?

Charlie Monoxide · 15th July 2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
About your claim that poor people are the most likely to have an abortion, do you have some data for that?

I second that request.

Of the 4 or 5 women I know that have had abortions, all of them were middle-class and above, and typically in a profession now.

Charlie (not the oldest profession) Monoxide

Jorghnassen · 15th July 2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
I second that request.

Of the 4 or 5 women I know that have had abortions, all of them were middle-class and above, and typically in a profession now.

Charlie (not the oldest profession) Monoxide

Your sample is small and your sampling scheme is biased (the people you know are not a representative subset of the general population). But yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing real statistics.

mortimer · 15th July 2005, 08:37 AM

From here

Poverty. Women with incomes below 200% of poverty made up 30% of all women of reproductive age, but accounted for 57% of all women having abortions in 2000: Twenty-seven percent of abortions were obtained by women living below the poverty line, and another 31% by women with incomes of 100-199% of poverty. The concentration of economically disadvantaged women among those having abortions was greater in 2000 than in 1994, when 50% of women obtaining abortions had incomes of less than 200% of poverty.

Abortion rates decreased as income rose, from 44 per 1,000 among poor women to 10 per 1,000 among the highest-income women. In 1994 as well, women with incomes below 200% of poverty had higher abortion rates than higher-income women. However, between 1994 and 2000, rates decreased among middle- and higher-income women, whereas they increased among poor and low-income women.

The high abortion rates among economically disadvantaged women were partly due to high pregnancy ratesâ€”133 per 1,000 for poor women and 115 per 1,000 for low-income women. As income increased, pregnancy rates declined, and women with the highest incomes had a pregnancy rate of 66 per 1,000. These women were the least likely to abort their pregnancies (15%), and poor and low-income women were the most likely to do so (33%).

Charlie Monoxide · 15th July 2005, 07:11 PM

Thank you mortimer and props for the response and quotes. Being Canadian and knowing that abortion on demand is a medical right in Canada (thank Jeebus), I did kinda suspect that women of modest means were the bulk of the abortion clients.

I dread to think that if George, God-boy, Bush, stuffs the supreme court with vote-attracting judges who will quash Roe V. Wade, what these poor (pregnant) women will do.

There's nothing like convincing yourself you are controlling a problem by outlawing it ......

Charlie (6 or 7 stouts of knowledge) Monoxide

BPSCG · 15th July 2005, 07:48 PM

(...take out grenade, pull pin, drop into thread, leave...)

AKA the Roe Effect.

Abortion's been pretty much available on demand for thirty years now.

I think it's fair to say that women who are opposed to abortion are less likely to have one than women who favor it.

Women who favor abortion tend to be liberal; women who oppose it tend to be conservative.

In general, a child's parents are his most important source of his values as an adult. Women who oppose abortion and don't abort their children are more likely to pass their values on than women who don't oppose abortion and do abort their fetuses.

How many children have been aborted since 1987? If those children had all been born, they would be 18 years old now and voting. I think it's safe to say that none of them are voting today, while the children born in 1987 to children of women who oppose abortion are voting.

Or watching MTV.

More on the Roe Effect, from its author.

Kevin_Lowe · 16th July 2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
[b](...take out grenade, pull pin, drop into thread, leave...)

It wouldn't surprise me, and I don't see it as terribly controversial.

It's much the same as the Catholic church's policy on family planning in general, which would (if all Catholics observed it) lead to them breeding up a sizeable number of extra voters over time.

Somehow democracy seems to muddle along nonetheless.

Kiless · 16th July 2005, 01:11 AM

My partner is currently reading that book, Freakonomics! In fact, cited that section to me about lower economic situations and abortion yesterday. It probably sounds like a reasonable argument to me, because I had two friends from highschool who struggled in life after having teen pregnancies and raised their children instead of having abortions. I can't say that they regretted having thier children but certainly they found it tough. Anyone got stats on 'poor people more likely to commit crime'?

BPSCG · 16th July 2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It wouldn't surprise me, and I don't see it as terribly controversial.

It's much the same as the Catholic church's policy on family planning in general, which would (if all Catholics observed it) lead to them breeding up a sizeable number of extra voters over time.

Except that the church's teachings on family planning in general are ignored in general.

Quote:

Somehow democracy seems to muddle along nonetheless.

True.

But think about it. If those millions of children aborted between 1973 (Roe) and 1987 were alive today, most of them would have inherited their parents' liberal values on abortion and other issues. If just 538 of those children had been living in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would be in his second term today.

Kevin_Lowe · 16th July 2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Except that the church's teachings on family planning in general are ignored in general.

That's why I stuck the qualifier in there.

Quote:

But think about it. If those millions of children aborted between 1973 (Roe) and 1987 were alive today, most of them would have inherited their parents' liberal values on abortion and other issues. If just 538 of those children had been living in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would be in his second term today.

A good point, although the margin in that election was so small that you could truthfully point to almost anything as "the" determining factor.

14th July 2005, 09:00 AM	#1
IllegalArgument Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Reston, VA Posts: 1,758	Abortion lowers crime? I recently got through listening to Freakonomics, dumb name but let it slide for now. Interesting book on the economics of the crack trade, real estate agents, and most controversial the link between abortion and lower crime. Here's a link to the chapter excerpt on abortion and crime. http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php Here's an pdf of the study. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue...nd%20Levitt%20(2001).pdf The short of it is, that the crime drop in 90s was caused, not by new policing programs or gun buy backs. The three main causes for the drop was, two smaller effects, longer jail terms and a bursting of the crack economic bubble, and one large effect abortion, reducing the number of at risk teens. Of course, the study has been attacked from both sides, for promoting abortion or eugenics. I'm not taking a side on this one, just curious what forum thinks and what you can add.

14th July 2005, 11:47 AM	#2
rdtjr Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 166	Hmmm, makes sense in a way. And that can be said without crying eugenics. Without even checking I'm 85% the folks crying eugenics are doing so in a knee-jerk way. If that is indeed the case I could make a great case that the cry is itself demonstrates highly racists thought processes. Anyway. Poor people are the most likely to commit crime. Poor people are the most likely to have an abortion. Having children one can't afford increases the likelihood of becoming or staying poor. Abortions of unaffordable children helps families financially, which trends to fewer poor people. Abortions for poor mothers results in fewer children born into poverty. Abortions for poor mothers therefore means less poor children becoming poor adults and therefore fewer numbers of the population group most likely to commit a crime. Abortions helps some families stay financially solvent resulting in fewer poor people resulting in a reduction of the group most likely to commit a crime. It all makes sense. I'm not sure I believe it, but it makes sense.
rdtjr Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 166

14th July 2005, 01:22 PM	#3
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by rdtjr Hmmm, makes sense in a way. And that can be said without crying eugenics. Without even checking I'm 85% the folks crying eugenics are doing so in a knee-jerk way. If that is indeed the case I could make a great case that the cry is itself demonstrates highly racists thought processes. Anyway. Poor people are the most likely to commit crime. Poor people are the most likely to have an abortion. Having children one can't afford increases the likelihood of becoming or staying poor. Abortions of unaffordable children helps families financially, which trends to fewer poor people. Abortions for poor mothers results in fewer children born into poverty. Abortions for poor mothers therefore means less poor children becoming poor adults and therefore fewer numbers of the population group most likely to commit a crime. Abortions helps some families stay financially solvent resulting in fewer poor people resulting in a reduction of the group most likely to commit a crime. It all makes sense. I'm not sure I believe it, but it makes sense. About your claim that poor people are the most likely to have an abortion, do you have some data for that?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

15th July 2005, 06:23 AM	#4
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron About your claim that poor people are the most likely to have an abortion, do you have some data for that? I second that request. Of the 4 or 5 women I know that have had abortions, all of them were middle-class and above, and typically in a profession now. Charlie (not the oldest profession) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

15th July 2005, 07:11 PM	#7
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Thank you mortimer and props for the response and quotes. Being Canadian and knowing that abortion on demand is a medical right in Canada (thank Jeebus), I did kinda suspect that women of modest means were the bulk of the abortion clients. I dread to think that if George, God-boy, Bush, stuffs the supreme court with vote-attracting judges who will quash Roe V. Wade, what these poor (pregnant) women will do. There's nothing like convincing yourself you are controlling a problem by outlawing it ...... Charlie (6 or 7 stouts of knowledge) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

15th July 2005, 08:16 AM	#5
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Quote: Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide I second that request. Of the 4 or 5 women I know that have had abortions, all of them were middle-class and above, and typically in a profession now. Charlie (not the oldest profession) Monoxide Your sample is small and your sampling scheme is biased (the people you know are not a representative subset of the general population). But yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing real statistics.

15th July 2005, 08:37 AM	#6
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,478	From here Poverty. Women with incomes below 200% of poverty made up 30% of all women of reproductive age, but accounted for 57% of all women having abortions in 2000: Twenty-seven percent of abortions were obtained by women living below the poverty line, and another 31% by women with incomes of 100-199% of poverty. The concentration of economically disadvantaged women among those having abortions was greater in 2000 than in 1994, when 50% of women obtaining abortions had incomes of less than 200% of poverty. Abortion rates decreased as income rose, from 44 per 1,000 among poor women to 10 per 1,000 among the highest-income women. In 1994 as well, women with incomes below 200% of poverty had higher abortion rates than higher-income women. However, between 1994 and 2000, rates decreased among middle- and higher-income women, whereas they increased among poor and low-income women. The high abortion rates among economically disadvantaged women were partly due to high pregnancy ratesâ€”133 per 1,000 for poor women and 115 per 1,000 for low-income women. As income increased, pregnancy rates declined, and women with the highest incomes had a pregnancy rate of 66 per 1,000. These women were the least likely to abort their pregnancies (15%), and poor and low-income women were the most likely to do so (33%).

15th July 2005, 07:48 PM	#8
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Abortion Also Gets Republicans Elected (...take out grenade, pull pin, drop into thread, leave...) AKA the Roe Effect. Abortion's been pretty much available on demand for thirty years now. I think it's fair to say that women who are opposed to abortion are less likely to have one than women who favor it. Women who favor abortion tend to be liberal; women who oppose it tend to be conservative. In general, a child's parents are his most important source of his values as an adult. Women who oppose abortion and don't abort their children are more likely to pass their values on than women who don't oppose abortion and do abort their fetuses. How many children have been aborted since 1987? If those children had all been born, they would be 18 years old now and voting. I think it's safe to say that none of them are voting today, while the children born in 1987 to children of women who oppose abortion are voting. Or watching MTV. More on the Roe Effect, from its author.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

16th July 2005, 12:33 AM	#9
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,284	Re: Abortion Also Gets Republicans Elected Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG [b](...take out grenade, pull pin, drop into thread, leave...) It wouldn't surprise me, and I don't see it as terribly controversial. It's much the same as the Catholic church's policy on family planning in general, which would (if all Catholics observed it) lead to them breeding up a sizeable number of extra voters over time. Somehow democracy seems to muddle along nonetheless.

16th July 2005, 01:11 AM	#10
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103	Re: Abortion lowers crime? My partner is currently reading that book, Freakonomics! In fact, cited that section to me about lower economic situations and abortion yesterday. It probably sounds like a reasonable argument to me, because I had two friends from highschool who struggled in life after having teen pregnancies and raised their children instead of having abortions. I can't say that they regretted having thier children but certainly they found it tough. Anyone got stats on 'poor people more likely to commit crime'?
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103

16th July 2005, 04:49 AM	#11
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Re: Re: Abortion Also Gets Republicans Elected Quote: Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe It wouldn't surprise me, and I don't see it as terribly controversial. It's much the same as the Catholic church's policy on family planning in general, which would (if all Catholics observed it) lead to them breeding up a sizeable number of extra voters over time. Except that the church's teachings on family planning in general are ignored in general. Quote: Somehow democracy seems to muddle along nonetheless. True. But think about it. If those millions of children aborted between 1973 (Roe) and 1987 were alive today, most of them would have inherited their parents' liberal values on abortion and other issues. If just 538 of those children had been living in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would be in his second term today.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

16th July 2005, 06:22 AM	#12
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,284	Re: Re: Re: Abortion Also Gets Republicans Elected Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG Except that the church's teachings on family planning in general are ignored in general. That's why I stuck the qualifier in there. Quote: But think about it. If those millions of children aborted between 1973 (Roe) and 1987 were alive today, most of them would have inherited their parents' liberal values on abortion and other issues. If just 538 of those children had been living in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would be in his second term today. A good point, although the margin in that election was so small that you could truthfully point to almost anything as "the" determining factor.