barackattack wrote:So, I've read the first few chapters of Freakonomics and would like to regurgitate the information I have absorbed from this endeavour.
Crime in the US was HIGH.
And then it got EVEN HIGHER.
By the early 90s, commentators were predicting RIVERS OF BLOOD as RAPE became SPORT in the inner cities.
But then, crime started to fall (from '91 onwards).
Crime has dropped consistently, year on year. Violent crime has plummeted.
Freakonomics reckons that this is due to more abortion. The people most likely to use abortions are poor, uneducated, black, probably on drugs and poor. These people are most likely to have criminal children (Tupac, Jazzy Jeff etc.). By allowing these people abortions, you are allowing the 'thugs' and 'OGs' of the future to be neutralised before they get their hands on their first 'piece' (gun).
Is this a valid conclusion? Does more abortions help prevent tomorrow's criminals being brought into existence?
The poll is a number of events from the year the crime recession began. They may or may not be relevant to the fall in crime.
This came up before. It is a real connection, but not because of race and the other factors to which you point. In fact, its not even truly "freakanomics". Its really about a very direct connection.
Specifically, people who decide to have an abortion do so because they realize either they do not have the maturity, the time, the energy and the finances and other multiple skills needed to raise a child. ALONG with a fair number of those who decide they either won't subject a child to living with serious injury/defects or that they themselves are not equipped to deal with those things (and yes, though you were not party to the earlier discussions on this, miscarriaged surgically removed ARE included in abortion statistics because that term refers to a procedure, not anything about the condition of the baby). The right wants to paint it as lazy, uncaring people deciding to kill fully healthy babies. BUT, here is the thing. Anybody can get pregnant, but not everyone is even close to capable of actually raising that child well. Some of those who have had abortions, particularly those having them for medical reasons, but also those who just realize they are not mature enough or financially able to raise a child then will go on to have others later and do very well. The right likes to pretend that is, essentially, proof that abortion is wrong. BUT they ignore that if that abortion had not occured, those future children would not be raised in the circumstances in which they have been raised AND may not have been born at all.
Even when someone is abortion due to medical reasons, you have to think about the sheer effort required to tend a child with extremely serious problems. Parents with highly disabled children are often unable to fully work, are often dependent on other taxpayers to just survive and pay for their child's medical needs.
Also... there is much more direct data on this. It has been brought up in other threads. I am not sure I will have the time here in the next few days to research it, but maybe you or someone else can find it if you wish.
