Question for pro-lifers

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I was reading Freakonomics and theres an interesting section on the drop in violent crime durring the '90s. They actually argue that it can be attributed to Roe V. Wade.

The arguemnt goes something like this: Children born to poor families are the most likely to become criminals. However poor motheres are also the least likely to get an abortion when its illigal, because its too expensive. However once abortion was legalized poor mothers were able have abortions, thus eleminating thousands, if not millions of children who would have otherwise grown up to be criminals.

Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?

[Rusty T]

Nope.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Nope.


Why not?(note: I'm not trying to advocate legalized abortion. I'm just curious as this is the first time I'v heard this line of argumentation).

[Teallaura]

For the same reason that establishing gulag's isn't justified despite their proven ability to reduce crime of all sorts.

[dizzle]

I hear there isn't much theft in those countries where hands are summarily cut off either. I bet terrorism could be reduced if we aborted all children of Muslims. Sound good? Of course not.

[soulshaper]

No, it isn't a justifiable anything. If the goal is to limit violent crimes, there are other ways of doing it besides taking the life of an unborn child. I mean, if that is the case, why don't we just push tying tubes and vasectomies for all those on welfare or living in the ghettos...

While that is an interesting correlation, I do believe it is a justification for allowing abortions. My question is, how has the definition of violent crimes been changed over that same period of time. I haven't read the book, maybe I need to to see how he handles that.

[themuzicman]

I was reading Freakonomics and theres an interesting section on the drop in violent crime durring the '90s. They actually argue that it can be attributed to Roe V. Wade.

The arguemnt goes something like this: Children born to poor families are the most likely to become criminals. However poor motheres are also the least likely to get an abortion when its illigal, because its too expensive. However once abortion was legalized poor mothers were able have abortions, thus eleminating thousands, if not millions of children who would have otherwise grown up to be criminals.

Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?

How about we round up everyone that fits a profile of a potential criminal and kill them. That would reduce crime, wouldn't it?

Michael

[Smokering]

Can I be the first to mention Hitler? ;p

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I just wanted point out a couple of things. In particular that the connection wasnt presented as an arguments for abortion. In fact Freakonomics isnt about morality at all, but about cause and effect, the connections between seemingly unrealted things, and how ecnomic theories(the authors are a pair of economists) can help us to understand complex issues. It facenating stuff really and highly recommended.

The second is that I dont hold a stake on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. I simply presented this because I thought it would make a good discussion, and because its a take on the issue I'v never heard discussed before.

Any further comments are more than welcome.

[Darth Executor]

I was reading Freakonomics and theres an interesting section on the drop in violent crime durring the '90s. They actually argue that it can be attributed to Roe V. Wade.

The arguemnt goes something like this: Children born to poor families are the most likely to become criminals. However poor motheres are also the least likely to get an abortion when its illigal, because its too expensive. However once abortion was legalized poor mothers were able have abortions, thus eleminating thousands, if not millions of children who would have otherwise grown up to be criminals.

Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?

No. Since pro-lifers believe abortion itself is a violent 'crime', far more people are murdered through abortion than the minority of people that would have been attacked and/or killed by the aborted people.

[burgy]

I was reading Freakonomics and theres an interesting section on the drop in violent crime durring the '90s. They actually argue that it can be attributed to Roe V. Wade.

The arguemnt goes something like this: Children born to poor families are the most likely to become criminals. However poor motheres are also the least likely to get an abortion when its illigal, because its too expensive. However once abortion was legalized poor mothers were able have abortions, thus eleminating thousands, if not millions of children who would have otherwise grown up to be criminals.

Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?

No. Two arguments:

1. The data used by Freakonomics is probably OK, although I am sufficiently a skeptic that I'd want to look at it carefully before using it.

2. The conclusion of Freakonomics is based on correlation, and correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

That said, I think legalized abortion might be justified on other grounds more easily. Note that I oppose abortion personally; but I also support the right of a person and her doctor to make difficult decisions in this area. In sum, what I oppose is criminalization of abortion. There are so many "special" cases. Like a 12 year old raped by her father. etc.

There is an interesting argument that says abortion before the time of womb implantation is of a different kind than abortion after that time. The argument goes like this (times approximate):

1. Assume that a "person" does not exist until God implants a soul.

2. Ask when this might happen.

3. The process of conception (sperm uniting with egg) takes about an hour. Maybe it is sometime during that time?

4. But the fertilized egg (now called a zygote), as it begins to divide, sometimes splits into two individuals. This can happen anytime before implantation. So to ascribe a "person" to that zygote seems to have a problem. Maybe TWO sould were implanted?

5. But this seems also unlikely, since sometimes the two individuals fuse into one before implantation.

6. So it seems likely, given assumption 1, that soul implantation does not take place until AFTER womb implantation. I think this is about two weeks after conception.

Another argument that there is no "person" present at the early stages is that someting between 33% and 67% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted. If all have "souls," and if the unborn attain heaven, then heaven is going to be populated by a lot of people who never were born! Possible, of course, but it does seem unlikely.

Cheers

jb

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

1. The data used by Freakonomics is probably OK, although I am sufficiently a skeptic that I'd want to look at it carefully before using it.

The '90s is pretty well accepted. Some of their other information may or may not be off, but I havent gotten around to checking it.

2. The conclusion of Freakonomics is based on correlation, and correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

No it isnt, as they gave a reason why(because more poor women were having abortions) rather than mearly noting they occured together.

Although the point of this topic wasnt so much to discuss the argument itself, as it was to discuss its implications. Levvit(the author of Freakonomics) didnt use it as an arguemnt for abortion, but simply as one of many examples of seemingly unconnected things that directly contributed to each other. I was just curious to see how pro-lifers would react if it were true(I'm not 100% certain it is, although it does kind of make sense).

[OneFollowingHim]

And if the baby with potential to do great good is lost through abortion, what then?

[Smokering]

If one is pro-life because one is afraid of losing a potential Einstein, one runs into trouble; because the same argument can be used to be pro-abortion (ie., so as to lose a potential Hitler). Basing the worth of human life on its contribution to society is both unbiblical and frankly, stupid. It's also impossible to determine, really. An IQ-of-78 janitor's assistant might inspire someone else to developing a cure for cancer; a prosperous lawyer might anger someone else into killing said cancer-curer. Who knows what impact one person has on society, except for God?


Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?
So we're giving the death penalty to thousands of babies on the grounds that they *might* commit a crime, based on socioeconomic statistics? Wow. Following this admirable line of reasoning, why not just kill all the poor people, whether born or not? I mean, the already-born ones are surely *more* likely to commit a violent crime in the near future... And how about the ethnicities with a higher rate of crime; let's have us some genocide! And hey, people below a certain IQ; *they* gotta go. Yup.

Sheesh.

[themuzicman]

OK, I remember what I was thinking when I saw this for the first time:

Not only were there an increase in abortions, there was also a difference of 24 million between the baby boomers (84 million) and generation X (60 million).

Thus, it wasn't abortion per se that caused a drop in crime, but a drop in the number of criminals in the normal age bracket. Most of your criminals are 16-30 (I think that's the number), and GenX would have been 16 between 1980 and 2000.

Thus, as less people turned 16, and the larger group aged past 30, there would have been less "people of typical criminal age" across the population, and thus, less crime.

I don't doubt that having 1/4 of my generation mates already being dead through abortion affected that, but I don't think we can attribute it to abortion directly.

Michael

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

OK, I remember what I was thinking when I saw this for the first time:

Not only were there an increase in abortions, there was also a difference of 24 million between the baby boomers (84 million) and generation X (60 million).

Thus, it wasn't abortion per se that caused a drop in crime, but a drop in the number of criminals in the normal age bracket. Most of your criminals are 16-30 (I think that's the number), and GenX would have been 16 between 1980 and 2000.

Thus, as less people turned 16, and the larger group aged past 30, there would have been less "people of typical criminal age" across the population, and thus, less crime.

I don't doubt that having 1/4 of my generation mates already being dead through abortion affected that, but I don't think we can attribute it to abortion directly.

Michael


Interesting, I hadnt thought about that.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I recall what Paul said. "Let us do evil that good may result."

We don't know if we have an Einstein or a Hitler. That's the problem. We shouldn't act on what we don't know. We should act on what we do know and we do know that this is an innocent human life and thus, we should not murder it.

[Storico]

Yup. And like you said, Nick, we DON'T know. In fact, we shouldn't base ANY of our decisions on what a person MIGHT do later in life. It doesn't make sense to. With infants, it isn't as though they have any kind of track record of doing good or evil already. They're innocent. When a child's growing up, we don't even know if we have an Einstein or a Hitler. We don't know until they BECOME Einstein or Hitler. The thing is, intrinsic human value and whether or not we ought to end a life can't depend on what a person may or may NOT be later in life. Human value depends on a LOT more than that, starting with the One who gives us life and brings us into being for a reason.

[Jedidiah]

In sum, what I oppose is criminalization of abortion. There are so many "special" cases. Like a 12 year old raped by her father. etc.

This is not correct. These "special" cases are a negligible minority of abortions.

[anthrogirl]

Now heres the question: assuming that argument holds water, do you think legalized abortion can be justified on the grounds that it reduces violent crime?

no--that's called eugenics, and it's now illegal in this country. Most forms of eugenics were outlawed in the early-mid 1980's.

ag