Abortion didn’t decrease crime
by Steven Ertelt
Yet another confirmation that abortion didn’t result in a reduction in crime. In fact, the trio of economists who analyzed the repeatedly-disproven Freakanomics theory found that violent crimes in the UK shot up tremendously following abortion legalization.
A lack of respect for lie fosters a lack of respect for life. 
From the story
“Violent crime does not decrease at all over the period. The trends are not supportive of a link between abortion and crime,” the economists write.
“Given all this, it seems highly unlikely that the legalization of abortion can, as Donohue and Levitt hypothesized, explain the dramatic drop in crime observed in the US in the 1990s.”
Two other “disproofs” are mentioned in the article.
Apr.11, 2008 2:35 pm |
Apologetics |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
pro lifers would be against abortion whether it raised or lowered the crime rate. Pro choicers are against a government ban on abortion whether it raises or lowers the crime rate.
So, interesting discussion perhaps, but it doesn’t change the debate.
This is Henry Morgentaler’s claim for Canada – how his free standing abortion clinics have rid Canada of all these unwanted babies who would have grown up to be murderers, rapists and so forth. He claims full responsibility for the downward trend in some crimes in Canada in the last 30 years. He missed Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka though…
But then again, Henry’s been delusional for years. He’s now approaching his death bed (apparently) so we should hope he gets enlightened real soon. If not, I can’t wait for justice to be meted out to this monster of a man.
Hal, agreed. I remember reading that claim in Freakonomics and thinking, “so what?” There may or may not be some causal connection between the U.S. downtrend in crime and legalized abortion, but it isn’t really an argument for legalized abortion. I also don’t think that the Freakonomics authors intended it to be an argument for legalized abortion, but just an observation and a possible explanation.
hal & hieronymous,
You guys are the only ones because I have to hear about all the future criminals abortion supposedly kills in almost every abortion debate I have.
The reason why I don’t believe in that is simple logic and personal experience. Just because someone didn’t want to get pregnant doesn’t mean they would change their mind when they see their baby. I know several people like that. On the other hand, I know several “wanted” & “planned” babies who grew up to be drug addicts and alcoholics, some engage in criminal behavior too.
Hey dummy, abortion was not supposed to decrease crime until about 18 years after it was legallized, when the unaborted unwanted kids would become teenagers (violent).
SoMG,
Abortion is a violent “procedure” for the mother and the baby. The end result is a society with lower inhibitions about hurting/killing other people.
Well said, truthseeker. Amen !
That’s not the point, “truthseeker”. The point I’m making is, the reduction in crime wasn’t supposed to come until 18 years after the legalization of abortion. That’s a lag time in the benefits. It’s silly to look at the period immediately after abortion was legalized.
The argument is, unwanted babies whose mothers are forced to give them birth are more likely to GROW UP to be criminals. But the growing up process takes 18 years. Therefore the hypothesis predicts a drop in crime 18 years AFTER abortion is legalized, not immediately.
We really don’t know what someone who never got the chance to grow up would have been like. They may have been a criminal, or a great benefit to society. They may have protected and saved life, or killed.
One type of crime has NOT decreased in the years since Roe v. Wade. That is crimes against children. In the thirty years since Roe v. Wade became law, crimes against children have skyrocketed, both inside and outside the family.
Kids can hardly play outside or walk alone down the street anymore without the worry that some pervert will try to kidnap them, and rape, molest, and/or kill them. Sometimes these pigs try to sneak into the house to take a child. It seems some men just don’t think it’s fair that only women get the wonderful liberating right to be able to kill children. They want a chance to experience “choice” too, even if they can’t get pregnant.
Child pornography has become a billion dollar business. Human traffickers often victimize children too.
Child abuse in the family has also increased since Roe v. Wade. When a child is killed by abuse at home by the parent (or the parent’s significant other), the punishment for the killer is often not nearly as harsh as it should be.
CPS is often co-oped with a concern for “family reunification,” which is often just a code term for parent’s rights at the expense of child safety.
By the way, crimes against women have gone up too, especially against pregnant women. Again, men want that same wonderful, murderous, liberating “choice,” even if they have to get it over the dead bodies of pregnant women.
So somebody thinks that crime has decreased since Roe v. Wade, eh? Well, I say, decreased for who? For white, male, middle class body builders, maybe. For children and pregnant women, I don’t think so.
Could it be that society is quickly losing its reverence for life? I wonder how that happened? We just stopped caring. Maybe because we hardened our hearts to one small segment of society and the hardness didn’t stay just targeting that one small segment. Like a cancer, the lack of respect for life creeped into other areas of our national life and culture.
Ceecee, just curious, but do you think that some of the reason for the rising rates is that we (as a society) have a different idea of what constitutes child abuse now? And also that people are more likely to report it? Also, do you have a link to the figures on rates of child abuse? I’d be interested in seeing that.
“You guys are the only ones because I have to hear about all the future criminals abortion supposedly kills in almost every abortion debate I have.”
Oh, I agree it’s been part of the debate. I’m mentioned in myself once or twice. I was just thinking that it doesn’t really change anyone’s mind in the debate (maybe nothing does). I couldn’t justify supporting abortion rights simply because of this effect if I otherwise thought abortion immoral.
Legal abortion has decreased crime, but that is not to say that the rate among people will decrease per se, because there are a multitude of other factors involved.
Legal abortion has decreased crime from what it would have been without it – that is the correct way to state it.
Legal abortion has decreased crime from what it would have been without it – that is the correct way to state it.
Posted by: Doug at April 12, 2008 5:40 PM
Doug, are you serious. That is a huge leap even for your logic. How can you possibly be so sure that aborted babies would be criminals if htey were allowed to live? That sounds absurd to me.
Doug, are you serious. That is a huge leap even for your logic. How can you possibly be so sure that aborted babies would be criminals if htey were allowed to live? That sounds absurd to me.
Truthseeker, I didn’t say they all would be criminals. Some would be, of course, just as is true with born people on earth in general. The question is if unwanted pregnancies would result in people with a higher crime rate than for the rest of the population. I think it’s reasonable to say yes, just as there are demonstrable tendencies in school performance, etc.
Thus, it’s reasonable to say the overall rate of crime would be higher. Certainly, there would be more crime on a raw numbers basis, as well, aside from the rate per capita.
Patricia: This is Henry Morgentaler’s claim for Canada – how his free standing abortion clinics have rid Canada of all these unwanted babies who would have grown up to be murderers, rapists and so forth.
No he doesn’t. Nobody is saying that “all” would become criminals, nor that legal abortion can prevent all such crimes. Of course they can’t, and it’s merely one more silly argument to pretend he said anything different.
I guess the holocaust sure decreased crime then, Doug. By that logic!
Bethany, yes, you could say that, same as you could say that if everybody on earth died, there’d be no crime. That’s the raw numbers basis.
Morgentaler doesn’t say he’s getting rid of all babies, in the first place, of course, nor that he’s preventing all such crimes.
I’d be interested to see what he actually has said.
coyfp imquws shircu wghc
http://www.freepages.at/lottocom/floridalotto florida lotto please