http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20010706_lead.htm

“In his peer-reviewed study, researcher Rick Nevin, vice-president with ICF Consulting’s Housing and Community Development Group, found:

Variations in childhood gasoline lead exposure from 1941 to 1986 explain about 90 percent of the variation in violent crime rates from 1960 to 1998.

Variations in childhood paint lead exposure from 1879 to 1940 explain 70 percent of the variation in murder rates from 1900 to 1960.
Lag times between lead exposure and variations in crime rates are due to exposed populations reaching the young adult ages (15-25) most associated with violent criminal behavior.”

Do Leavitt’s applications of economic principles refute the above conclusions in any way? Not having read the book (I intend to) I am wondering what other possible correlative events he may have considered?

We are faced with the problem of having cultivated an over-population of elderly and an under-population of new-borns. Over the next thirty years or so there will be a void in the workforce which cannot be filled by a lackluster production rate. In other world, we are not reproducing babies to care for the rising rate of elderly.

In the long run, maybe this is why the current structure of Social Security, Medicare and Abortion are such distructive policies.

Perhaps this is one reason why the Bush policy towards immigration might be useful, assimulate as many people as possible into the society today so that we have enough workers to care for tomorrow’s huge elderly problem?

Ironic that, at the end of the day, those who advocate abortion throughout their youth will most likely be euthanised in their old age because there will not be anyone available to care for them.

Wow. The leading cause of death in Black America is abortion, I have been told. I am a little too flustered to say what I would like to say in a thoughtful, incisive manner, because this issue hits WAY too close to home for me. I guess I’d have to call this notion “Pre-Genocide”. I’d better stop before I say something unbecoming a man of God.

Only in America….

Link spilling over into sidebar. Had to delete. – Admin

Do you really want human life to be devalued to the point where abortion becomes as commonplace as a trip to Walmart?

Organizations like Planned Parenthood prey on the urban communities and young black women in particular.

It gives a whole lot of credence to the believe that it truly is the eugenics organization the founder wanted it to be.

“Another factor, much as we hate to admit it, is indeed race. But not simply by virtue of melanin content: instead, by virtue of the enslavement of the black race by Johnson’s “Great Society”. Black men were made unecessary except as “donors”. The Government took responsibility for caring for mom and all the kids. Heathcliff Huxtable was no longer needed. Daddy Government would take care of you. No moral dads, no moral guidance (athletic super-heroes notwithstanding: “I want to thank my grandmamma and mamma who raised me single-handedly”). No moral guidance, no self-control; and on and on until we see an overrepresentation in crime statistics of blacks.”

But your casual links of welfare to the current state of black America are misguided and poorly thought out.

You arbitrarily assume that a government system of providing for families eliminates the need of a father and therefore has enabled the destruction of A HIGHER PERCENTAGE of black families than would normatively happen in our American society.

I submit that thi may be a variable, but not the cause as you imply.

Why? Because it completely disregards the greater framework of the black experience, inlcuding Jim Crow, residual psychological effects of slavery, the devaluation of the African-American on every front by the American system and the most important, the elimination or reduction of capital infusion into African American communities to create wealth, independent businesses and an ‘integrated economic system’ which is far more important that integration itself.

To state that simply because a ‘welfare’ system was created and therefore blacks have no moral fabric just doesn’t make sense. I could go on but I think the point is made.

As far as the topic at hand. The assumption that ‘abortion’ equals less crime also makes certain assumptions:

1. That individuals who have abortions don’t have the same amount of children any way. So a teen aborts one child, and later only has one child. If she only planned on having one child (or plug in the number) then as mentioned above, the net effect is 0. The only argument that then could be made would be that the mother had a child at a later age, and therefore is more mature and can raise a child to NOT committ the crimes and therefore the statistics drop.

2. Hypothetically, let’s say ever child aborted would then be an additional child in the family. So if one was aborted, and the mother had three children, then the addition of the aborted one would equal four. Potentially the authors scenario may be true as each child would represent a reduction in family wealth, and an increased difficulty of raising the child in terms of attention. Then it would make sense that the child ‘may’ be more likely to commit crime, or 1 out of 4 children might committ crime.

However, being that this is speculative, we know that the ‘black middle class’ is growing, growing from where? The lower class, and if we are assuming that it is a much higher percentage of lower class blacks that committ crime then we simultaneously have to acknowledge under this scenario, the disproportionate number of blacks aborted who did not reach middle class. This alone skews the whole equation, because as the middle class increases, so the theory goes there are more blacks whom have hiring power and diversity interest, and therefore provide more programs and hire more individuals like themselves…eventually reducing the number of lower class blacks and moving them into middle class.

That is not accounted for either.

So overall, at face value, the assumptions of the report make sense. But in reality, sociology and cultural change and growth is unpredictable. Final example, what if Dr. Martin Luther King was aborted? What would the cultural impact of that have been?

Maybe you should approach MSNBC about setting up a 30 minute set for you to have people like the two Steves on, for a debate. And you could participate/mediate. I would LOVE to see that.
I think you’d do a great job, and it would be interetsing.

Dan

This comment thread is getting interesting.

Still, the social effects of abortion demand closer study. Although Levitt claims that legalized abortion should have improved the conditions under which children were raised, it made adoption rare. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported, “Before 1973 about one in five premarital births to white women were relinquished for adoption. By the mid-1980’s (1982–88), this proportion fell to 1 in 30.”

Even worse, the national illegitimacy rate soared, from 12 percent in 1972 to 34 percent in 2002. The growth didn’t begin to slow until the mid-1990s, when the abortion rate declined. Increased illegitimacy is socially devastating, not just because of the long-run harm to the child of being raised without a father but because of the immediate effect of freeing young men from the civilizing clutches of marriage.

Why did the abortion rate and the illegitimacy rate both skyrocket during the ‘70s? Isn’t abortion supposed to cut illegitimacy? Roe largely finished off the traditional shotgun wedding by persuading the impregnating boyfriend that he had no moral duty to make an honest woman of his girlfriend since she could get an abortion. The CDC noted, “Among women aged 15–29 years conceiving a first birth before marriage during 1970–74, nearly half (49 percent) married before the child was born. By 1975–79 the proportion marrying before the birth of the child fell to 32 percent, and it has declined to 23 percent in 1990–94.”

The most striking fact about legalized abortion, but also the least discussed, is its pointlessness. Levitt himself notes that following Roe, “Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent …” So for every six fetuses aborted in the 1970s, five would never have been conceived except for Roe! This ratio makes a sick joke out of Levitt’s assumption that legalization made a significant difference in how “wanted” children were. Indeed, perhaps the increase in the number of women who got pregnant figuring they would get an abortion but then were too drunk or drugged or distracted to get to the clinic has meant that the “wantedness” of surviving babies has declined.

The sheer waste of it all is staggering.

A few weeks ago, Levitt’s publicist suggested to him that he resume the debate with me in order to publicize his book. He refused, claiming, according to her, that he didn’t have time.

Judging from his placing an aggrieved comment here, he now seems to have time on his hands for defending his abortion-cut-crime theory, so allow me to state for the record that I am available to debate him any time, any place.

While you are waiting (and I fear we might all end up waiting a long time for Dr. Levitt to agree to another round with me) you can read my article in The American Conservative showing what’s empirically wrong with his assertion at

http://amconmag.com/2005_05_09/feature.html

You can also see my subsequent blog items on the controversy, additional graphs on the topic, and crime trend data allowing you to make up your own mind at:

http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm

In case Sheena checks back here, I’d like for her to look at the abortion rates when compared to who controls the legislative branch instead of the executire one. Very different results. More importantly, the President and the legislature don’t have much influence on the number of abortions since even minor restrictions are ruled unconstitutional (partial birth for example). Comparing how many abortions happened before Roe and after Roe should give you a feel of the impact on liberal policies and abortion rates.