Are you for or against abortion?

[Julie]

Originally Posted by kkibak

Have any of you read Freakonomics? The book makes an interesting connection between abortion and crime rates--more specifically, the author suggests that the reduction in crime that occured in the 90s took place largely because about 15-25 years earlier the Roe v Wade decision enabled criminals to be aborted.

That sounds like the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

[Heather]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

Like I said... if she can't keep her legs closed put her on the pill and make damn sure she takes it

YES!!

[kkibak]

Originally Posted by Zap

I voted "Other".

I can't say I'm for abortion, but I support the woman's right to choose.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about a father's right to choose? (I'm genuinely asking a question here, not trying to make a point or something)

[kkibak]

Originally Posted by Julie

That sounds like the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

Julie, you should check it out for yourself. It's a fairly convincing argument. Also I revised the original post a little since you read it to make it more clear. I'll see if I can find a summary of the argument and post it hear since he articulates it much more clearly than I can.

[Julie]

Anyone can make outlandish correlations between different events.

[BingoBalls]

100% against it.

[kkibak]

Here's a brief explanation taken from http://www.andrewspicer.com/article551.html

Originally Posted by http://www.andrewspicer.com/article551.html

This shocking idea is summarized rather simply in the Introduction:

As far as crime is concerned, it turns out that not all children are born equal. Not even close. Decades of studies have shown that a child born into an adverse family environment is far more likely than other children to become a criminal. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade -- poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get -- were often models of adversity. They were the very women whose children, if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because of Roe v. Wade, these children weren't being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic, distant effect: years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet.

More specifically they explain that women who choose to have an abortion usually have a good reason to not want to have a child. Whether it be the fact she's unmarried, or poor, or an addict, or too young, too unstable, or whatever, she "may feel that she cannot provide a home environment that is conducive to raising a healthy and productive child." The Steves suggest that, on the average of cases, these pregnant women were more likely to be right.

The argument is not a pro-abortion argument per se. The argument is based on studies that show typical children that went unborn when abortion was legalized were much more likely to come from impoverished households, single parents, teenage mothers, and undereducated mothers. They tell us that all of these factors have been shown by research to be strong predictors that a child is more likely to have a criminal future.

Levitt and Dubner review several of the other factors that have been credited with the sharp reduction in crime, such as innovative policing strategies, the strong economy, tougher gun laws and the aging of the population. Studies and anecdotes are referenced that suggest that these factors had marginal impact, at best. Enlarged police forces, increased imprisonment, and changes in the drug market were given some credit for the drop (10%, 33%, and 15%, respectively). But the book suggests that the biggest factor is the aforementioned legalization of abortion in the United States.

[kkibak]

Originally Posted by Julie

Anyone can make outlandish correlations between different events.

Very true, the thing is he actually has data to support it and is one of the most respected economists in the world.

Let me just reiterate I do not support or oppose his argument, I just thought people might find it interesting.

[Julie]

There is no data existing that shows what was in the DNA of the dead babies, or that they had any potential to actually be a criminal.

[kkibak]

No, because the argument is not based on DNA. It's based on the demographics of the potential mothers

And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade -- poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get -- were often models of adversity. They were the very women whose children, if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals

[Julie]

It's still a crap arguement if you ask me.

Around these parts, the poor ones like to pop 'em out.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Honestly, I find that the entire concept behind that book is... well... interesting.

"let's commit murder so that we can prevent murderers from being born"

what kind of logic is that? can someone help me out here? or am I missing something?

[kkibak]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

Hoestly, I find that the entire concept behind that book is... well... interesting.

"let's commit murder so that we can prevent murderers from being born"

what kind of logic is that? can someone help me out here? or am I missing something?

i think you guys are misunderstanding his intentions or perhaps i put it out there in the wrong manner--he isn't using it as a justification for abortion, he is pointing out an interesting correlation.

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by kkibak

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about a father's right to choose? (I'm genuinely asking a question here, not trying to make a point or something)

sure he has a right to choose..... keep it in his pants or get a job and start saving up to pay child support.

How's that for right to choose?

[Ohiosweetheart]

Originally Posted by kkibak

i think you guys are misunderstanding his intentions or perhaps i put it out there in the wrong manner--he isn't using it as a justification for abortion, he is pointing out an interesting correlation.

you didn't put it out there wrong darlin, like I posted, I've read the book. That's what I got

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

sure he has a right to choose..... keep it in his pants or get a job and start saving up to pay child support.

How's that for right to choose?

I'll second that!

[kkibak]

Originally Posted by Ohiosweetheart

sure he has a right to choose..... keep it in his pants or get a job and start saving up to pay child support.

How's that for right to choose?

Heh, I see I'm not winning any popularity contests here

I think it's because I'm not being clear in my questions.

It is always termed a "woman's right to choose" by pro-choice supporters. My question is, knowing that it takes both sperm and eggs to make a baby, do you feel that (assuming there is a right to choose) the father should have the same / more / less say than the mother?