Cold calculations; abortion = criminal culling?

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 13 2005, 07:20 PM']Did you read the article at all?

Card is talking primaily about the book [i]Freakonomics[/i] which deals with how the media does shoddy (or no) research with statistics!  The abortion/crime correlation was just the intro, mentioned first, I imagine, for shock purposes. 

In no way is Card condoing abortion.  Neither is he any part of the media (unless you consider science fiction novels "media").  He's a conservative Mormon.  Er, unlike all those liberal Mormons?  Nevermind.

This is not a news story at all; that's the point.  There are real statistics out there that no one wants to examine because they don't fit current paradigms.
[right][snapback]757564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am not saying the article quoted nor its author is pro-abortion. But it does accept the hypothesis in [i]Freakonomics[/i] that abortion was in fact the cause of reduced crime.

I am simply pointing out that this particular conclusion has been shown to be fallacious, and is not a proven "fact," regardless what one thinks about abortion.

The "statistics" with regards to this have in fact been examined, and found wanting. The arguments against [i]Freakonomics[/i]' assertion are based in statistical data, not emotional appeals. (Wish I had that article!)

Edited October 14, 2005 by Socrates

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 13 2005, 07:27 PM']The "statistics" with regards to this have in fact been examined, and found wanting.  The arguments against [i]Freakonomics[/i]' assertion are based in statistical data, not emotional appeals.  (Wish I had that article!)
[right][snapback]757575[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wish you did too. Do you have any idea where it was?

The author's whole point in [i]Freakonomics[/i] was analysis of statistics without bias. There appears to be a strong correlation: the drop in crime correlates precisely with the year that abortion was made legal in each state.

No one is happy about this potential correlation. No one. Okay, maybe some freakish neo-Nazis, but no one remotely normal.

I would be surprised if the article you read was from someone with no bias whatsoever.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 13 2005, 08:25 PM']I wish you did too.  Do you have any idea where it was? 

The author's whole point in [i]Freakonomics[/i] was analysis of statistics without bias.  There appears to be a strong correlation: the drop in crime correlates precisely with the year that abortion was made legal in each state.

No one is happy about this potential correlation.  No one.  Okay, maybe some freakish neo-Nazis, but no one remotely normal.

I would be surprised if the article you read was from someone with no bias whatsoever.
[right][snapback]757641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do wish I had the article, because then I could have a more meaningful discussion of it. I don't even remember all the points it made - I just remember that I found it a very convincing case. It was in some conservative publication if I remember correctly, but I forget which one. I read it over a year ago, I read lots of things, and I can't keep track of every article I read.

The truth is that nobody can be considered absolutely "with no bias whatsoever," including the authors of Freakonomics. I am not discussing anybody's biases or supposed motivations, but the factual evidence, which in no way "proves" abortion was responsible for lowering crime rates.

That argument is the fallacy of "post hoc, proctor hoc." ("before which, the cause of which.")
The argument is that abortion became legal and many poor minority kids were aborted. In the mid-late 90's, the previously rising crime rate began to fall. Therefore, so the argument goes, the falling crime rate in the '90s-'00s was due to the abortions, which lowered the "potential criminal" population.

But lets look at the facts. In the late nineties (the time in which the decrease in crime rates began to occur), the proportionate population of those the Freakonomics people deemed likely criminals - young, minority males - actually [b]rose[/b]!
By Freakonomics' assertions, the crime rate should have [b]risen[/b] dramatically during this time.
We had a [b]rising population [/b]of "at risk" young males, yet a corresponding [b]decline[/b] in crime rates. This contradicts the Freakonomics hypothesis of a lowering of the "at risk" potential criminal population as the cause of lowered crime rates!!
Obviously, other factors than demographics were responsible.

[quote]the drop in crime correlates precisely with the year that abortion was made legal in each state.[/quote]
This makes no sense whatsoever! Abortion became legal in most states in the early '70s (Roe v. Wade was in 1973). Crime did not begin to decline until the 1990s (a time which saw a significant increase in the young minority population.)
(And if crime did begin to drop,as you assert, "precisely with the year that abortion was made legal in each state," that would still have nothing to do with abortion. Babies normally don't start commiting crimes the year they are born! )

Edited October 14, 2005 by Socrates

[philothea]

I SAID the crime rate CORRELATED precisely. Obviously the drop in the crime rate was a number of years LATER. It's the same number of years in every state. (Edited to add: I don't know the exact number. Apparently it's about when young adults begin comitting crimes.)

No one is "proving" anything. No one is claiming to prove anything. There is a strong indication. There might be something to it. It might be intelligent to consider the possibility. Edited October 14, 2005 by philothea

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 14 2005, 01:11 AM']

I SAID the crime rate CORRELATED precisely.  Obviously the drop in the crime rate was a number of years LATER.  It's the same number of years in every state. (Edited to add: I don't know the exact number.  Apparently it's about when young adults begin comitting crimes.)

No one is "proving" anything.  No one is claiming to prove anything. There is a strong indication.  There might be something to it.  It might be intelligent to consider the possibility.
[right][snapback]757936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The problem is, the statistics don't really support this hypothesis.
The whole logic of the argument is built on the assumption that the crime rate fell because there was a lowered population of "at risk" young males ages 17-26 or so.

However, the time when crime rates began falling in the late nineties, also saw a marked increase in the number of males in this age range who were supposedly "at risk" (coming from single-parent homes, etc.).

[b]"Freakonomics" theory: Lowered population of "at risk" males = less crime

Facts: Late '90s/early '00s: Rising population of "at risk" males, declining crime rate[/b].

Thus, the recent fall in crime rate appears to have nothing to do with a decreased population of "likely criminals," but should more realisticly be attributed to other factors. (Various "tough-on-crime" policies, more cops, more people moving to "gated communities," etc.)

Thus it is irrational to credit abortion with the lower crime rate. (Post hoc, procter hoc.) Lots of things happened during this time - one might as well credit increased p.c. ownership or global warming.

Why is it "intelligent" to hold this unfounded and unlikely assertion? What are the merits of considering it?

It sounds like nothing but a convenient pro-abortion assertion.
(Not necessarily in a racist, eugenicist "Fight crime by killing all the nice black men" way, but in a "compassionate" "It's great how freedom of choice has spared people a life of misery and crime - isn't it a better society where every child's a wanted child" way.)

[Socrates]

bump

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 14 2005, 06:26 PM']The problem is, the statistics don't really support this hypothesis.
The whole logic of the argument is built on the assumption that the crime rate fell because there was a lowered population of "at risk" young males ages 17-26 or so.

However, the time when crime rates began falling in the late nineties, also saw a marked increase in the number of males in this age range who were supposedly "at risk" (coming from single-parent homes, etc.).

[b]"Freakonomics" theory:  Lowered population of  "at risk" males = less crime

Facts:  Late '90s/early '00s:  Rising population of "at risk" males, declining crime rate[/b].

Thus, the recent fall in crime rate appears to have nothing to do with a decreased population of "likely criminals," but should more realisticly be attributed to other factors.  (Various "tough-on-crime" policies, more cops, more people moving to "gated communities," etc.)

Thus it is irrational to credit abortion with the lower crime rate. (Post hoc, procter hoc.)  Lots of things happened during this time - one might as well credit increased p.c. ownership or global warming.
[right][snapback]758844[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you have some statistics to present, I would be happy to see them. All I read was the article. Discussing statistics without referencing them is pointless.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 14 2005, 06:26 PM']Why is it "intelligent" to hold this unfounded and unlikely assertion?  What are the merits of considering it?

It sounds like nothing but a convenient pro-abortion assertion.
(Not necessarily in a racist, eugenicist "Fight crime by killing all the nice black men" way, but in a "compassionate" "It's great how freedom of choice has spared people a life of misery and crime - isn't it a better society where every child's a wanted child" way.)
[right][snapback]758844[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you want to win a debate, you find out your opponent's best possible arguments first.

I suspect you think the idea of abortion reducing crime is ridiculous because you think God wouldn't allow things to work that way. I don't see that. In many areas of life, both personally and as a society, doing the wrong thing gets desirable results.

Edited October 16, 2005 by philothea

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 16 2005, 10:59 AM']If you have some statistics to present, I would be happy to see them.  All I read was the article.  Discussing statistics without referencing them is pointless.
If you want to win a debate, you find out your opponent's best possible arguments first.

I suspect you think the idea of abortion reducing crime is ridiculous because you think God wouldn't allow things to work that way.  I don't see that.  In many areas of life, both personally and as a society, doing the wrong thing gets desirable results.
[right][snapback]760235[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am arguing based on statistical facts. The population of young adults rising in recent years (the same time as the decline in crime rates) is well-established, and I have seen these statistics (about the rising young demographics) in numerous places (unrelated to this abortion debate). I will try to get some statistical sources when I find time.
In the meantime, I have not seen any statistical data to contradict my point.

If anyone can come up with statisitcs showing an actual decline in the number of "at-risk" youth during the period of reduced crime, I will consider this argument to at least have merit. Until then, I consider the argument that abortion lowered the crime rate to be completely unsubstantiated.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[url="http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm"]This article by Steven Sailer[/url] does an excellent job of refuting the "Freakonomics" abortion theory.

Note that the number of illegitimate births rose dramatically since Roe v. Wade. Also, the first generation of young people born after abortion was legalized had particulary high rates of violent crime (late '80s-early '90s).

This article is rather long, but is well worth reading if you are interested in the statistics behind this debate.

Here is a [url="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_09/feature.html"]short article[/url] by the same author on this topic.

The empirical data entirely contradicts Levitt's theory in "Freakonomics."

I thought it was interesting that Sailer notes in the first article:
"One thing I've noticed is that the pro-lifers have shown almost zero interest in the fact that Levitt's theory isn't empirically valid. Strikingly, many of them want it to be true in order to prove the purity of their moral intentions: Even though legal abortion would lessen the chance of me being murdered or mugged, I'm still against abortion on principle. "

There is no reason for pro-lifers (or anyone else) to accept a false premise.

Please read these articles carefully before debating further.

Edited October 16, 2005 by Socrates

[philothea]

Thanks for the links! I hope to be able to read them thoroughly soon.