4 ms·

Freakonomics makes a case the drop in crime is directly correlated with the passing of Roe VS Wade and the legalization of abortion. This led to the 18 year lat

Freakonomics makes a case the drop in crime is directly correlated with the passing of Roe VS Wade and the legalization of abortion. This led to the 18 year later drop in unwanted male children now adults. Very interesting read on a very explosive topic :)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hash872 7y ago
His argument has been widely debunked, and subsequent followup found that Leavitt had a huge data error that way overstated his conclusion. I personally find the lead/crime argument to be much more convincing
- rdtwo 7y ago
  What’s the lead/crime argument?
  - dnissley 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
- rayiner 7y ago
  “Widely debunked” is too strong. They’ve released a new study where they double down on that conclusion: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/abortion-c...
- kenoyer130 7y ago
  It is a good chapter to read to see their methodology even if you don't agree with the results. For example, comparing stricter/easier gun laws and prison times in different cities and not finding a correlation to the drop in violence since it was across the board.
  - hash872 7y ago
    Oh I've read it and am familiar with their argument, I just disagree. I don't think analyzing gun laws on a city by city basis makes a lot of sense, they're small, in high demand apparently, and easily smuggled from a more permissive locale. The abortion argument is just a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically more predisposed to being dumb & violent, etc. It's just a step on the way there. I hardly think I have to spell out what's the next step on the road after that. Open white supremacists like Steve Sailer vocally support the abortion argument, for instance
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      " a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically " How did you come ot that conclusion? Much simpler option is on the table: parents mostly abort kkids when they know they don;t want them or can;t take care of them. Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not become criminals.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not become criminals. Adopted children (in the US) are much more prone to various failures, like becoming criminals, than are the biological children of their adoptive parents. It seems unlikely that this is due to the adopted children being unwanted.
    - yesenadam 7y ago
      An argument (in this sense) is a particular way of arriving at a conclusion. There could be different arguments for the same conclusion. This Freakonomics abortion thing seems to me an explanation. The 'conclusion' here is the reality of lower-than-expected crime rates - you don't argue for that; you try to explain it. Your second paragraph is the most naked slippery-slope appeal to fear I've seen. Just repeating "just a pathway", "just a step" doesn't make it so. If the explanation is true, it's true. That some racist believes something or not doesn't affect its truth or falsity. I get a kind of claustrophobic communist-era vibe from your comment - that there is no truth, no reality, outside what the powers-that-be declare to be true. (I guess we call it 'political correctness' - there's no 'correct', only 'politically correct'.)
- loeg 7y ago
  "Widely debunked" is factually inaccurate. It has not been debunked at all. It is not popular and leads to a lot of emotional responses, and there was one particular mechnical error in a single table in the original paper (Foote and Goetz); it has been addressed by the authors and did not materially affect the basic analysis or high-level conclusion. An independent study on the lead/crime hypothesis (impact of childhood lead exposure on criminality) came to a similar conclusion.[0] (Reyes is interviewed in the podcast linked below.) Finally, they recently published a 15-years on follow-up study, which showed continued support for the hypothesis.[1] You can read a transcript of their most recent podcast on the subject here[2], or just go direct to the source material. [0]: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Reyes_2007.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_o... [1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pd... [2]: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/
Clubber 7y ago
IIRC, that was just one of the potential factors. Another was the phasing out of lead gasoline. The arc of crime is fascinating though. I was in high school during t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hash872 7y ago

His argument has been widely debunked, and subsequent followup found that Leavitt had a huge data error that way overstated his conclusion. I personally find the lead/crime argument to be much more convincing

rdtwo 7y ago
What’s the lead/crime argument?
- dnissley 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
rayiner 7y ago
“Widely debunked” is too strong. They’ve released a new study where they double down on that conclusion: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/abortion-c...
kenoyer130 7y ago
It is a good chapter to read to see their methodology even if you don't agree with the results. For example, comparing stricter/easier gun laws and prison times in different cities and not finding a correlation to the drop in violence since it was across the board.
- hash872 7y ago
  Oh I've read it and am familiar with their argument, I just disagree. I don't think analyzing gun laws on a city by city basis makes a lot of sense, they're small, in high demand apparently, and easily smuggled from a more permissive locale. The abortion argument is just a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically more predisposed to being dumb & violent, etc. It's just a step on the way there. I hardly think I have to spell out what's the next step on the road after that. Open white supremacists like Steve Sailer vocally support the abortion argument, for instance
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    " a pathway to IQ/some people are genetically " How did you come ot that conclusion? Much simpler option is on the table: parents mostly abort kkids when they know they don;t want them or can;t take care of them. Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not become criminals.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > Kids that are wanted, are much more likely to be properly brought up and not become criminals. Adopted children (in the US) are much more prone to various failures, like becoming criminals, than are the biological children of their adoptive parents. It seems unlikely that this is due to the adopted children being unwanted.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    An argument (in this sense) is a particular way of arriving at a conclusion. There could be different arguments for the same conclusion. This Freakonomics abortion thing seems to me an explanation. The 'conclusion' here is the reality of lower-than-expected crime rates - you don't argue for that; you try to explain it. Your second paragraph is the most naked slippery-slope appeal to fear I've seen. Just repeating "just a pathway", "just a step" doesn't make it so. If the explanation is true, it's true. That some racist believes something or not doesn't affect its truth or falsity. I get a kind of claustrophobic communist-era vibe from your comment - that there is no truth, no reality, outside what the powers-that-be declare to be true. (I guess we call it 'political correctness' - there's no 'correct', only 'politically correct'.)
loeg 7y ago
"Widely debunked" is factually inaccurate. It has not been debunked at all. It is not popular and leads to a lot of emotional responses, and there was one particular mechnical error in a single table in the original paper (Foote and Goetz); it has been addressed by the authors and did not materially affect the basic analysis or high-level conclusion. An independent study on the lead/crime hypothesis (impact of childhood lead exposure on criminality) came to a similar conclusion.[0] (Reyes is interviewed in the podcast linked below.) Finally, they recently published a 15-years on follow-up study, which showed continued support for the hypothesis.[1] You can read a transcript of their most recent podcast on the subject here[2], or just go direct to the source material. [0]: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Reyes_2007.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_o... [1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pd... [2]: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/

Clubber 7y ago

IIRC, that was just one of the potential factors. Another was the phasing out of lead gasoline. The arc of crime is fascinating though. I was in high school during t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States