|
Is there a relationship between the abortion rate of a society and its incidence of crime?
Obviously, this isn’t a very pleasant subject, but it is one that captured the interest of many sociologists and economists. In view of the recent attention heaped on the abortion debate, the following observation furnish considerable interest.
According to the research of Steven D. Levitt, an economist at The University of Chicago, there is definitely a relationship between the rate of abortion and the rate of crime. This research constitutes a portion of Levitt’s recent book, Freakonomics. Written with Stephen J. Dubnerl, it is now No. 3 on The New York Times Best Seller List. Incidentally, the abortion-crime rate issue involves only a tiny fraction of the book’s subject matter.
On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Norma McCorvey (her real name disguised as Roe). The defense was Henry Wade, the Dallas County district attorney. The case is known as Roe v. Wade, and legalized abortion became the law of the land.
A generation later, Roe v. Wade had helped trigger the greatest crime drop in recorded history.
Levitt wrote: “It wasn’t gun control or a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the American crime wave. It was, among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had dramatically shrunk.”
I realize that it is often repeated that anyone can prove anything with statistics. We are familiar with the oft-quoted: “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.” (Attributed to both Mark Twain and Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881, English prime minister of The Conservative Party.)
All of us are aware that, regarding crime, not all children are born equal.
Years of scholarly studies have demonstrated that children born into poverty, broken homes, one-parent homes and victims of emotional neglect are more likely than other children to become criminals. Therefore, fewer children born into these adverse conditions should result in a lower crime rate.
After Roe v. Wade, millions of women who were models of poor societal conditions conducive to crime were able to get an abortion. Before, these women, often in poverty, often too young, uneducated, addicted to alcohol or drugs, often unmarried, often victims of abuse, often gave birth to a baby they resented. Childhood poverty and a single-parent household are strong indicators for a criminal record, according to years of research.
It would seem, then, that the very factors that move a pregnant female to have an abortion---poverty, resentment due to rape or incest, alcohol or drug use, lack of education and marital status—are the factors most responsible for a high crime rate for children born into those adverse conditions.
Therefore, wouldn’t that move to lessen the occurrence of these factors be a move to lessen the occurrence of crime?
Studies in this country and in Europe indicate a proof of that hypothesis.
Babies born into unwantedness is a sad situation. If legalized abortion leads to less unwantedness, if unwantedness leads to a high crime rate, shouldn’t legalized abortion logically lead to less crime?
Unfortunately, a discussion such as this often becomes an inflamed racial issue. It shouldn’t. The rate of abortions is higher in the U.S. white population than in the U.S. black population.
The reasons for that fact is another sociological study, which we have learned is guaranteed to offend some groups.
We undoubtedly derive inner pleasure in the “pain” of being “offended.” This “pleasurable” offense has become a national pastime. TV and radio news and talk programs understand that. It is worth millions to them.
| 
