JohnEngelman
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
- Posts
- 4,468
Years ago I heard a radio talk show host say that an issue radio talk show hosts hate to discuss is abortion. He said that the facts are not in dispute; what matters is how one feels about the facts. All the arguments have been stated.
That was before the publication in 2005 of Freakonomics: a Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
In Chapter 4, “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?” the authors begin by stating a fact: since 1991 the rate of violent crime in the United States, which had risen dramatically since 1960, began to decline equally rapidly.
https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
They consider and reject a number of possibilities. Strict gun control laws did not have an effect, nor did laws enabling people to get a permit to carry concealed handguns. The bountiful economy of the 1990’s was not responsible. In 2005 the authors could not have known this, but the rate of violent crime continued to decline during the Great Recession.
Two factors that did contribute were the hiring of additional police officers, and more and longer prison sentences. The authors do attribute the doubling of the rate of violent crime during the 1960’s to fewer and shorter prison sentences.
More police officers and more and longer prison sentences are not explanations that are original with this book. The original, infuriating, and in my opinion plausible explanation was the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. This caused the rate of abortion to rise to one out of 2.25 pregnancies by 1980.
Why did abortion have this effect? It did because the same kind of females who are most likely to have abortions are also most likely to raise boy babies who grow up to become violent street criminals. They are young, unmarried, poor, and have low IQ's. A potential armed robber who was aborted in 1974 would have been eighteen in 1992. Eighteen is a prime year for violent street crime.
States that legalized abortion prior to the 1973 Roe case experienced declines in violent crime earlier. Studies in Canada and Australia have noticed a similar relationship between rates of abortion and crime.
This argument angered conservatives and liberals. Conservatives did not like any suggestion that abortion could be beneficial. Liberals disliked the eugenic and even genocidal implications of the theory. Nevertheless, the book sold well, and Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner became famous.
In Chapter 5: “What Makes a Perfect Parent?” the authors present an argument that is nearly as controversial. Perfect parents do not do; they are. Reading to children and taking them to museums has little or no effect on classroom performance and scores on mental aptitude tests. Having lots of books in the house is a good predictor of classroom performance and mental aptitude test scores.
This seems counter intuitive. How can books help if they are not read to or by the children? Well, it turns out that intelligent parents tend to accumulate books. They also tend to have intelligent children. Unintelligent parents cannot compensate by being intellectually conscientious.
The authors also point out that Head Start is ineffective.
This will be discouraging to parents who want their children to succeed where they failed. It will tell other parents to relax, and let nature takes its course. Parents should recognize and encourage talents their children have. They should not try to force something that is not there.
The rest of Freakonomics is less interesting, and appears to be filler. Drug dealers are likely to live with their mothers because they usually make less than they could in a minimum wage job. The big salaries go to the drug kingpins, of whom there are few.
In a four year period the drug dealers studied by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner were arrested an average of 5.9 times. They received an average of non fatal wounds 2.4 times. One out of four were killed – usually by other drug dealers.
Why do they do it? They do it because they want to become drug kingpins. When they realize that this is not going to happen they usually go into another line of work.
Elsewhere in the book we learn that the Klu Klux Klan resembles a group of real estate agents because both benefit from knowing what the larger public does not know. School teachers and sumo wrestlers are similar in that when it is in the interest of either to cheat, some will.
The boring parts of Freakonomics may have been added in order to offset the shock of what is unpleasant to believe, but believable.
Nevertheless, this book changed my attitude about the Roe v. Wade decision. I used to oppose it on general principles. I thought it was a flimsy piece of legal reasoning.
I still think it is a piece of legal reasoning. Nevertheless, as a victim of violent crime, I now favor free abortion on demand with no restrictions.
That was before the publication in 2005 of Freakonomics: a Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
In Chapter 4, “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?” the authors begin by stating a fact: since 1991 the rate of violent crime in the United States, which had risen dramatically since 1960, began to decline equally rapidly.
https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
They consider and reject a number of possibilities. Strict gun control laws did not have an effect, nor did laws enabling people to get a permit to carry concealed handguns. The bountiful economy of the 1990’s was not responsible. In 2005 the authors could not have known this, but the rate of violent crime continued to decline during the Great Recession.
Two factors that did contribute were the hiring of additional police officers, and more and longer prison sentences. The authors do attribute the doubling of the rate of violent crime during the 1960’s to fewer and shorter prison sentences.
More police officers and more and longer prison sentences are not explanations that are original with this book. The original, infuriating, and in my opinion plausible explanation was the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. This caused the rate of abortion to rise to one out of 2.25 pregnancies by 1980.
Why did abortion have this effect? It did because the same kind of females who are most likely to have abortions are also most likely to raise boy babies who grow up to become violent street criminals. They are young, unmarried, poor, and have low IQ's. A potential armed robber who was aborted in 1974 would have been eighteen in 1992. Eighteen is a prime year for violent street crime.
States that legalized abortion prior to the 1973 Roe case experienced declines in violent crime earlier. Studies in Canada and Australia have noticed a similar relationship between rates of abortion and crime.
This argument angered conservatives and liberals. Conservatives did not like any suggestion that abortion could be beneficial. Liberals disliked the eugenic and even genocidal implications of the theory. Nevertheless, the book sold well, and Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner became famous.
In Chapter 5: “What Makes a Perfect Parent?” the authors present an argument that is nearly as controversial. Perfect parents do not do; they are. Reading to children and taking them to museums has little or no effect on classroom performance and scores on mental aptitude tests. Having lots of books in the house is a good predictor of classroom performance and mental aptitude test scores.
This seems counter intuitive. How can books help if they are not read to or by the children? Well, it turns out that intelligent parents tend to accumulate books. They also tend to have intelligent children. Unintelligent parents cannot compensate by being intellectually conscientious.
The authors also point out that Head Start is ineffective.
This will be discouraging to parents who want their children to succeed where they failed. It will tell other parents to relax, and let nature takes its course. Parents should recognize and encourage talents their children have. They should not try to force something that is not there.
The rest of Freakonomics is less interesting, and appears to be filler. Drug dealers are likely to live with their mothers because they usually make less than they could in a minimum wage job. The big salaries go to the drug kingpins, of whom there are few.
In a four year period the drug dealers studied by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner were arrested an average of 5.9 times. They received an average of non fatal wounds 2.4 times. One out of four were killed – usually by other drug dealers.
Why do they do it? They do it because they want to become drug kingpins. When they realize that this is not going to happen they usually go into another line of work.
Elsewhere in the book we learn that the Klu Klux Klan resembles a group of real estate agents because both benefit from knowing what the larger public does not know. School teachers and sumo wrestlers are similar in that when it is in the interest of either to cheat, some will.
The boring parts of Freakonomics may have been added in order to offset the shock of what is unpleasant to believe, but believable.
Nevertheless, this book changed my attitude about the Roe v. Wade decision. I used to oppose it on general principles. I thought it was a flimsy piece of legal reasoning.
I still think it is a piece of legal reasoning. Nevertheless, as a victim of violent crime, I now favor free abortion on demand with no restrictions.
