The Benefits of Abortion on Society

welsh

Junkmaster
Yes, I know- this is a religious-science debate in hiding.

But since we are talking about parential licensing elsewhere, I thought this might be interesting-

Abstract:
We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.

So how bad can abortion really be. If you want to stop people from having people, think of all the bad guys you avoid by letting them getting aborted.

This is better than retroactive abortions, isn't it?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004
 
it does make sense seeing as the population growth rates would end up being lower. thus, even if the same percentage of the population turned to crime, it would appear that the crime rate was going down.

nevermind me, im just a silly criminal justice major
 
How many abortions are being had, though? If the amount performed doesn't really significantly impact population growth, then one would lend credence to Behaviorist psychology, since the kids that would have been aborted have a higher chance to turn to crime for whatever reason their parents would have caused.

This is really interesting stuff.
 
These statistics, though very interesting and indicative, should never be used as an argument for abortion. The issue of abortion isn't about whether it is good or bad for society - it is about freedom of choice. To deny a woman right to have abortion means to deny her that freedom. It is a duty of every democratic government to uphold individual freedom and legalize abortion regardless of its ideological prefix. Even a conservative government comprised of hardened Christians must permit abortion, as it is in accordance with democratic principles.
 
Democratic principles would dictate that a morally conservative government could abolish abortion. Seeing as how the primary Democratic principle is majority rule.
 
Hey Meg- nice to see you. But your link doesn't do much.

Democratic principles based on notions of civil rights that protect the rights of the individual over the moral views of a majority, might raise issue with that.

Of course moral conservatives may point the fingers at activist judges (a laugh considering how many conservative judges were put on the bench during the last 20 years). But then we might also question the issue of seperation of powers and checks and balances- which I think a political conservative might appreciate.

Tangled is the web we weave!

This article got hit from all sides, but I love the crux- children in certain demographics and circumstances are more likely to become criminals, remove that population and a reduction in crime.

And who can argue reduction in crime?

You can down load the entire article from the links at the bottom of this page-
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

which will include some interesting appendix data.

Oh the Economist wrote on this-
The criminal unborn

Aug 12th 1999 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition

WHO would have thought the debate over abortion in America could become any more inflammatory? Now it has. John Donohue of Stanford University Law School and Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, have released the results of an unpublished paper* that attributes as much as half of the sharp drop in American crime rates in the 1990s to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court that legalised abortion throughout the United States.

The authors argue that the connection between abortion and crime is chillingly simple: a steep rise in abortions after 1973 has meant that many individuals prone to criminal activity in the 1990s were never born. There are two reasons for this. First, abortion shrinks the number of people who reach the age where they are most prone to commit crimes. Second, and more important, abortion is not random. Teenagers, unmarried women and blacks are more likely than average to have abortions; they are also more likely to have children at risk of committing crimes later in life. Similarly, women with unwanted pregnancies are less likely to be good parents and may do things during pregnancy, such as take drugs, that make future criminality more likely.

The authors present three strands of evidence to support their conclusion. First, the precipitous drop in crime across the country coincides with the period in which the generation affected by Roe v Wade would have reached the peak of its criminal activity, at the age of 18-24. Second, the five states that legalised abortion in 1970, three years before Roe v Wade, were the first to experience the drop in criminal activity. And, last, states with high abortion rates from 1973 to 1976 have seen the largest fall in crime since 1985, even after checking for other factors such as incarceration rates, racial composition and income. (In contrast, there is no relationship between abortion rates in the 1970s and crime before 1985, when abortion-affected groups had not yet reached criminal age.)

The authors reckon that a 10% increase in the abortion rate is associated with a 1% decrease in crime; current crime rates would be 10-20% higher if abortion had not been legalised. Using current estimates for the social cost of crime, the authors estimate the concomitant social benefits of abortion to be in the order of $30 billion a year. They also predict that crime rates will continue to fall by 1-2% a year for 15-20 years as the full effects of legalised abortion are felt.

The premises of the paper all seem reasonably sound. It is by putting them together that the authors of the paper have managed to shock a lot of people, by no means all of them in America.

cus619.gif
 
508 abortions per 1,000 births? Holy fuck, people.

I mean, I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but haven't people heard of birth control? The Pull out method doesn't count.

Democratic principles based on notions of civil rights that protect the rights of the individual over the moral views of a majority, might raise issue with that.

Of course I'm making a statement based on Semantics. People tend to throw around the word Democratic willy-nilly without considering what exactly Democracy means. Modern governments incorporate Democratic methods into their process, since allowing the populace a modicum of voice in government is always healthy.

No nation, however, is a true Democracy, but representative Democracies.

Democratic is such a misused term that many people, including those on this forum, criticize America as a failing Democracy, when, what comedy, we've never been a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

So how do we define liberal ideals concerning personal freedoms? I don't really have the answer. Claiming them as Democratic, however, gives meaning to a term that was never meant to encompass that meaning.
 
Teenagers, unmarried women and blacks are more likely than average to have abortions; they are also more likely to have children at risk of committing crimes later in life. Similarly, women with unwanted pregnancies are less likely to be good parents and may do things during pregnancy, such as take drugs, that make future criminality more likely.

And along those same lines, parents who are poor and have an abortion to avoid an unwanted pregnancy/child would in turn not have to resort to crime or social support in order to provide for said child. In fact, it could short a disturbing trend seen by social workers - where a teenage girl gets knocked up and continues her life drawing on welfare, to provide her the support she turns to depend on, and the boyfriend of the week turns towards crime.
 
Back
Top