Stephen J. Dubner, a best-selling author and a contributor to the New York Times (whose website hosts a blog "meant to keep the conversation going" about his book) would have his audience believe that abortions of "unwanted children" have led to the decrease in the violent crime rate.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on November 11 that Dubner, a co-author of "Freakonomics," addressed the Washington (State) Policy Center’s small business conference luncheon on November 8 and mentioned this apparent abortion/crime link during his speech. The link is a claim that Dubner’s co-author, Steven Levitt, first made in a 2001 paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime." As Dubner put it during his speech, "Unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. What happens, then, when your population pool has removed from it a big chunk of the unwanted children?" Dubner and Levitt devoted an entire chapter to the supposed abortion/crime connection in Chapter 4 of "Freakonomics."
But there is a problem with forwarding this kind of supposed link. Levitt himself admitted that there was a "programming error" in his research after economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston released a report in 2005 that faulted Levitt’s statistic research. In addition, John Lott of "More Guns, Less Crime" fame and John Whitley of the University of Adelaide in Australia came out with a paper later in 2001 which countered Levitt’s claims. (h/t to Dawn Eden of The Dawn Patrol blog for links to articles about both papers)
Despite these countering studies, both Dubner and Levitt stood by their claim. After the 2005 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston report was released, Levitt’s response was stalwart. "Does this change my mind on the issue? Absolutely not."
Dubner was even transparent in his explaining why he continues to sell his argument, as the following excerpt from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article makes clear.
"Unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. What happens, then, when your population pool has removed from it a big chunk of the unwanted children?"
It's a controversial message that Dubner is used to giving, but one that Washington's business leaders were clearly not used to hearing.
The lunchtime clinking stopped. No one in the banquet room moved. They didn't rub their eyebrows or sip their iced teas or even glance at their peers. They just stared straight ahead.
Dubner's prior comments had been amusing. His post-abortion story involved an experiment that taught monkeys to use money. Monkey antics made everyone laugh.
But even the serious stuff is "the kind of thing that people like you really need to think about," Dubner told the crowd.
"The less that we're able to talk in polite society about important incentives, the further and further we go down the road of making policy that responds to what people are willing to talk about, which isn't always the entire picture."
So, Dubner wants to "confront" people about the supposed truth of his findings, despite the evidence to the contrary.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Unwanted children are much
November 12, 2007 - 19:08 ET by alamojb"Unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. What happens, then, when your population pool has removed from it a big chunk of the unwanted children?""
The Left has a long history of removing "unwanted" portions of the "population pool." I guess when your socio-political outlook elevates man and government to the level of God, you can do that with clear conscience.
Dangerous, dangerous people.
couldn't we just
November 12, 2007 - 19:22 ET by TruthMongercouldn't we just exterminate all prisoners? that would help even more? I bet he's against the death penalty - for criminals anyway - obviously not babies:)
A alternative point of view
November 12, 2007 - 19:12 ET by In ExcessSince the unwanted child has already been aborted, how can they commit more crimes?
indeed - we could help
November 12, 2007 - 19:24 ET by TruthMongerindeed - we could help create a master race - eventually:)!
Dubner and Levitt are pure
November 12, 2007 - 19:28 ET by bigtimerDubner and Levitt are pure filth.
If you take the statistic one step further, I'll take it two
November 12, 2007 - 19:51 ET by KC MulvilleThis is what happens when you use logic only long enough to sell your argument, but not long enough to see where it leads. In this argument, abortion is considered a remedy for crime. So we must ask: why is abortion the only remedy?
Is it silly? Of course. But once you advance an argument by extending a statistical point one step further, you can't complain when others take it two or three steps further.
Note: James Taranto of the "Best of the Web" on Wall Street Journal has a theory he calls the "Roe Effect." Basically, if you favor abortion, your children are more likely to favor abortion also. But if you abort your children, they won't grow up to vote. Therefore, abortion tends to eliminate its own supporters. The difference here, of course, is that whereas Taranto simply makes an observation, these guys use the observation to support abortion.
Wow, KC! GMTA!! I was going
November 12, 2007 - 20:48 ET by motherbeltWow, KC! GMTA!! I was going to mention the Roe Effect.
In a similar vein, I just received an email that said this:
If we:
a...Allow those men who want to marry men, marry men.
b...Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
c.. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, to abort their babies.
d.. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.
That is why they need an
November 12, 2007 - 21:51 ET by alamojbThat is why they need an open border. The "Roe Effect" is completely negated.
Just consider Baptist. In the US, many are associated with the right. Yet I have second hand information originating from a Baptist missionary that there are Communist Baptist in Mexico. I suspect this is what is now called "liberation theology" which is a form of Communism. What percentage, I do not know. That report was also a decade or so ago. (Someone I know was told that by a missionary, that is why I said "second hand") I am not sure where "liberation theologists" stand on abortion.
liberation theologists
November 13, 2007 - 12:12 ET by mbuelThey love abortion.
quote from one:
"if you make abortion illegal, it will be done in the back alleys and more women will die."
Once again ignoring the reality of women dying from legal abortion.
What is also hilarious, is that it is typically the well off, selfish idiots who kill their pre-born children, not the "poor" with "unwanted" babies. (who the hell are they to decide that the kid is unwanted?)
Liberation theologians
November 13, 2007 - 13:48 ET by KC MulvilleWith respect, I disagree. Most liberation theologians, being Catholic theologians and/or priests, are not in favor of abortion. I actually know a couple of them, and I've spent a brief time with Jon Sobrino, who is probably the most famous liberation theologian -- and I can testify that he does not support abortion.
I'll confess a little secret. Sobrino himself admitted that most liberation theologians come from Latin American societies, and (as of 1988, when we had the conversation) those societies are not much interested in women's rights or gays rights. We had the conversation in El Salvador; Sobrino said that it's still very much a Latin, male, machismo culture. They're fairly conservative about most social issues. Liberation theology is focused on economics and politics. They're worried about their next meal and not getting arrested or shot. To them, by comparison, worrying about gay pride is frivolous.
LOL
November 13, 2007 - 01:51 ET by KC MulvilleI guess that's why they want cloning so much ...
Of course it doesn't change his mind
November 12, 2007 - 19:51 ET by bulbasaurTime to pull the curtain down on their 15 minutes, and give a wink to P.T. Barnum who's laughing his ass off right now.
Just the same old song and dance
November 13, 2007 - 12:09 ET by mbuelThe left has ALWAYS pushed Eugenics. They don't grasp complex things, like diversification of the gene pool that would be lost through such idiotic elitism.
Not to mention the typical left tunnel vision of ignoring statements of fact that counter your belief. (funny that most of these elitists accuse conservatives of the very behavior they exhibit on a daily basis.)
Dubner misses on so many
November 13, 2007 - 17:02 ET by MikeBDubner misses on so many points. His biggest logic mistake is equating correlation with causation. For argument's sake, let's assume his first assumption is true, i.e., that while abortion numbers have increased, crime statistics have decreased. During all that time have all other socio-economic factors held constant? Or, have factors such as the proliferation of "shall issue" concealed weapons permit states, the growing economy and it's increases in opportunities for employment, the "three strikes" laws in various states had no effect whatsoever on crime rates?
But, let's assume his premise is correct: that the millions of abortions performed has decreased crime and that this is a good thing. By logical extension then, the remaining crime in this country is because we haven't aborted enough of these potential criminals, so let's perform post-natal abortions on the ones we missed that have proven to be criminals. (We just won't call it the death penalty for incorrigible criminals. Call it "post-natal abortion" like I mentioned above, and it should fit right in with the left's ideals.)
Now, are we to assume that all of the abortions performed have been only on babies that would postitively grown up to be criminals? Or, have they aborted the child which would have discovered the cure for breast cancer (nice lefty hook, there) if they had been allowed to grow up? Have they aborted the child which would have managed to unlock the secrets of neoneurogenesis and curing paralysis due to spinal trauma? Have they aborted the child which would have discovered the cure for Alzheimer's? There is no telling, of course. Therefore, the basic premise of this fool is invalid. Abortion hasn't done a d*mn thing except kill millions of babies.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan