Was listening to Freakonomics podcast last week, and they revisited the most famous assertion they have ever talked about: the evidence that increase in abortion lowered crime in the US.

I'd read the book back in the day, but this podcast goes through a lot of the backstory, which was interesting. As well as looking at more recent evidence.

What it boils down to is that there is evidence that "unwanted" children have much worse outcomes. One thing that needs to be discussed in terms of our current crime and shootings etc. is what can be done to improve the outcomes for these kids.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/

They have interesting analyses, but are the extreme definition of correlation vs causation.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Was listening to Freakonomics podcast last week, and they revisited the most famous assertion they have ever talked about: the evidence that increase in abortion lowered crime in the US.

I'd read the book back in the day, but this podcast goes through a lot of the backstory, which was interesting. As well as looking at more recent evidence.

What it boils down to is that there is evidence that "unwanted" children have much worse outcomes. One thing that needs to be discussed in terms of our current crime and shootings etc. is what can be done to improve the outcomes for these kids.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/

---

The question first should be will there be the will to do what can be done to help them. Over all the answer is no, many individuals and organizations are amazing and do great work, but it's not enough to reach all of the unwanted children. And the amount of unwanted children is about to increase exponentially.

It's extremely arrogant to predict the outcomes of "unwanted" children.

Quote:

---

It's extremely arrogant to predict the outcomes of "unwanted" children.

---

Exactly!
All those "unwanted children" in Mexico to Brazil come to America and become great people!*










*Unless they vote democRAT

Bird Poo said:

---

It's extremely arrogant to predict the outcomes of "unwanted" children.

---

As I understand it, it's not a matter of prediction. It's a matter of having researched the past and found that children described by their parents as unwanted, had much worse outcomes. I'm not familiar with the research, I'm only stating what is asserted by the economists interviewed in the podcast.

Are children unwanted among married couples?

Then the problem isn't unwanted children.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

It's extremely arrogant to predict the outcomes of "unwanted" children.

---

As I understand it, it's not a matter of prediction. It's a matter of having researched the past and found that children described by their parents as unwanted, had much worse outcomes. I'm not familiar with the research, I'm only stating what is asserted by the economists interviewed in the podcast.

---

How is the answer not, "No **** sherlock."

I woudn't give very good odds to any child being raised by parents who explicitly said they didn't want them. Not that they couldn't do a great job but good grief.

Quote:

---

It's extremely arrogant to predict the outcomes of "unwanted" children.

---

That, and whether someone wants or doesn't want kids is a poor indicator of their parenting abilities. The term itself can be wildly offensive depending on one's background.

Isn't China using these same arguments with sterilizing the Uighurs in their country? Why is one acceptable and one detestable?

The moral cost of a society willing to toss aside its most vulnerable in the name of convenience has turned out to be an incalculable cost.

Unwanted? Or unplanned. Big difference. There used to be no difference between planned and unplanned children.

Then we became a nation of instant gratification narcissists.

kb2001 said:

---

They have interesting analyses, but are the extreme definition of correlation vs causation.

---

They go into that lazy attack. It just gets repeated ad nauseum as another pop science/pop psychology/pop statistics trope. Do you even know what their test was to prove that abortion had an effect on crime?

Before Roe versus Wade, abortion was a statewide issue. There were conservative states that had super strict abortion laws, states with moderate abortion laws, and liberal states with super lax abortion laws. They were already tracking crime in all of these areas.

Roe V Wade happens and suddenly everyone gets access to an abortion in their own state. What happens next? States that already had a ton of abortions was just business as usual, there wasn't much a change in abortions or crime. States that got a moderate uptick in abortion saw a moderate downturn in crime 14-18 years later. States thate had a lot of abortions happen after Roe V Wade saw a sharp downturn in crime 14-18 years.

The presence of lax states acts as a control. The presence of moderate states acts reinforces trends set by the strictest states. I don't see how this gets all handwaived off as CoRrElAtIoN nOt CaUsAtIoN. A casual event has to be correlated as well.

I think they hit bedrock. Their theory is that violent crime is a young male supermajority phenomenon. Unwantedness flows strongly into fatherlessness, joining gangs, and rough homelife that are indicators of crime. With abortions, those kids aren't there anymore to be future criminals.

Its sick, Its not a valid excuse for abortion, but I think they've identified one of the ways to break the cycle-which is murder.

The Freakonomics podcast is proof that if your world view is the government is responsible for solving problems, your conclusions have a strong tendency to be flawed.

The solution to not wanting a dog is don't go the pound and pick one up.

Not go the pound, entice one to get in your car, then throw it out the window at highway speed on the way home.

Red states are running an experiment. We can see the results in 16 years or so after the S.Ct releases their opinion.

There was some logic behind their hypothesis that the 90s crime wave ended when the criminals aged out and the first Roe generation came of age. But their hypothesis breaks down because it can't explain why crime rates are on the rise once again. (Hint: Look at incarceration rates vs crime rates in the 90s and again after 2018 when the Soros judges and DAs started implementing their flavor of 'Criminal Justice Reform'.)

Ah, eugenics. Been a while.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

They have interesting analyses, but are the extreme definition of correlation vs causation.

---

They go into that lazy attack. It just gets repeated ad nauseum as another pop science/pop psychology/pop statistics trope. Do you even know what their test was to prove that abortion had an effect on crime?

Before Roe versus Wade, abortion was a statewide issue. There were conservative states that had super strict abortion laws, states with moderate abortion laws, and liberal states with super lax abortion laws. They were already tracking crime in all of these areas.

Roe V Wade happens and suddenly everyone gets access to an abortion in their own state. What happens next? States that already had a ton of abortions was just business as usual, there wasn't much a change in abortions or crime. States that got a moderate uptick in abortion saw a moderate downturn in crime 14-18 years later. States thate had a lot of abortions happen after Roe V Wade saw a sharp downturn in crime 14-18 years.

The presence of lax states acts as a control. The presence of moderate states acts reinforces trends set by the strictest states. I don't see how this gets all handwaived off as CoRrElAtIoN nOt CaUsAtIoN. A casual event has to be correlated as well.

I think they hit bedrock. Their theory is that violent crime is a young male supermajority phenomenon. Unwantedness flows strongly into fatherlessness, joining gangs, and rough homelife that are indicators of crime. With abortions, those kids aren't there anymore to be future criminals.

Its sick, Its not a valid excuse for abortion, but I think they've identified one of the ways to break the cycle-which is murder.

---

I'm aware of their argument, and they dismiss the impact of gun laws in their analysis, they give it lip service and wave it away. The more direct change was states allowing concealed carry, and the drop in crime was immediately following those changes. This was covered on this board in depth 8-10 years ago. We see the same effect in mass shooting attacks, in that they typically target gun free zones where the attacker is less concerned about armed defenders. Reduction in violent crime was the goal, the predicted effect, and the observed effect of rearming private citizens.

Pointing to abortion as the reason for reduced crime is more akin to complaining that the lawn is wet because the hose was left on while ignoring the thunderstorm that's been happening all day.

I hate linking to vox, but they summarize the situation well:

Quote:

---

There are two big problems with the abortion theory. One of them is that abortions didn't suddenly go from 0 to 60 when abortion was legalized. Before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions still happened; after the decision, there were still plenty of people who chose not to get them. There was also a supply problem: "It wasn't like Roe v. Wade was decided and suddenly there were a million places to get an abortion," John Roman of the Urban Institute says.

The second problem is age. In the 1990s, the crime rate didn't just go down among people born in 1973 or later. It went down among a bunch of age groups at once. There's evidence that youth crime rates influence the crime rates of older adults, but that doesn't mean the people who turned 21 in 1994 were powerful enough to suppress crime among people a decade older.

---

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/17991872/crime-drop-murder-abortion-roe-v-wade

The drop in crime probably had to do far more with aggressive police tactics beginning in cities across America. In fact we see what's happened with homicides since summer 2020 as police have backed off.

Was also correlated to leaded gassoline.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Was also correlated to leaded gassoline.

---

yes, and one of the most important researchers in this area was interviewed in the episode, and discusses her findings in the context of the abortion effect.

It's an interesting episode. Whether you agree or don't agree. Or like it or don't like it.