"Freakonomics" co-author Stephen Dubner appeared on Thursday's "Good Morning America" to talk about crime and also to repeat his unsubstantiated argument that legalized abortions have resulted in less crime. The journalist and author asserted, "What happened when Roe V. Wade was handed down was that unwanted children are basically at a much greater risk for being born into the circumstances where they're more likely to lead a criminal life. Not every unwanted child by a long stretch, but typically."
In other words, 35 years after the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision, "the generation of people around then included fewer unwanted children and therefore fewer criminals." At no point did Roberts question this assertion or mention that it has been repeatedly challenged since Dubner and his economist co-author Steven Levitt made it in their book. In fact, a study by another economist, John Lott, found that legalized abortion actually increased the murder rate by seven percent. However, unimpeded by contradictory arguments, Dubner simply told Roberts, "It's good to know what forces work in society, if for no other reason than to keep doing the right thing." The right thing, one presumes he means, is to keep aborting children.
Dubner's contention is that the less people born into lower socioeconomic circumstances, the fewer criminals America will have to deal with. However, as John Lott pointed out in both his study and "Freedomnomics," a book written in response to Dubner's, this doesn't appear to be the case.
An August interview with Cybercast News summed up Lott's argument this way:
Lott's study argues that after the high court ruled that states must allow abortion, more permissive sexual behavior and less contraception produced three things: an increase in out-of-wedlock births, a reduction in the number of children placed for adoptions, and fewer married parents.
"Those are contradictory directions," Lott, an economist and senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, told Cybercast News Service. "What ties them together is liberalized abortion rules. It affected decisions on premarital sex and careful contraception. It's a matter of economics. When something seems less costly, there's more of it."
Lott noted there are many good single mothers doing an excellent job rearing their children. But those children almost never get as much attention as children in a two-parent family, he said. Further, children in single-parent families statistically have more social development problems and thus statistically are more likely to be criminals.
During his January 17 GMA appearance, Dubner did make a few arguments that could be described as conservative and rarely seen on network television. (He claimed that gun laws don't work very well.) But when someone makes a statement as incendiary as calling abortion a solution to crime, it behooves those individuals at ABC and "Good Morning America" to feature a counter-balancing position.
For more on this topic, see a November 12, 2007 NewsBusters blog by the MRC's Matthew Balan on the subject.
A transcript of the January 17 segment, which aired at 8:35am, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: "Freakonomics" author Stephen Dubner is a master at helping us not only ask questions, but also to question the answers we get from the usual sources. And this morning, Stephen is here to talk about a subject that no one else is talking about and to help us understand why people are no longer talking about. You have our attention. It's good to see you. So, what is this topic that voters or the candidates not talking about?
STEPHEN DUBNER (Author, "Freakonomics"): Yeah, the candidates are not talking about it because the voters are not thinking about it. And what they're not thinking about is crime, violent crime. Right? So, in past presidential campaigns it's been a big feature of a lot of campaigning and almost bizarrely this year, it doesn't exist.
ROBERTS: People want to know why. And they look at a couple things. Strong economy and the number of police on the street. A factor?
DUBNER: A strong economy or a weak economy doesn't really affect crime a lot. It's a very weak relationship between the economy and crime. Number of police on the street, however, has a big effect. And so, right now, perhaps heading into a recession, people are worried, will crime get worse? The short answer is probably not unless it leads to fewer police.
ROBERTS: And now, that's-- I'm glad you said that. Because, people thinking about a recession and they're thinking, oh, boy, is the crime rate going to go up? Also, when you think about crime, think about those that are in prison and those that are on death row.
DUBNER: Right. Capital punishment, it turns out is not really a deterrent on crime because of the way it's carried out in this country, the long lag and so on. If we were to be the kind of country where capital punishment were carried out the minute after you committed or were convicted of a crime and you killed people on the spot that would change the scenario. But the way it works right now is, it's not a deterrent. Prison, meanwhile, is a huge one. So, there are a lot of reasons to not be happy about the fact that we have more than two million people in prison in this country. But, the number of prisoners has a strong effect on how much crime there is. And the more we put in prison the less crime there is.
ROBERTS: But Death row doesn't really--
DUBNER: No. Not a deterrent.
ROBERTS: How about legalized abortion and aging population? What kind of effect does that have when it comes to the crime rate increasing?
DUBNER: Right. So, years ago, people were thinking that as the country gets older there will be less crime because older people aren't criminals, for the most part. But that shift happens very slowly and does not have a big effect on crime. The legalization of abortion, however, as jarring as this notion is-- What happened when Roe V. Wade was handed down, was that unwanted children are basically at a much greater risk for being born into the circumstances where they're more likely to lead a criminal life. Not every unwanted child by a long stretch, but typically.
ROBERTS: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DUBNER: And so, you saw that a generation later, the generation of people around then included fewer unwanted children and therefore fewer criminals.
ROBERTS: I want to get to a subject that always makes people a little uncomfortable. Gun laws and wanting to know the effect that that has.
DUBNER: Not anywhere near as much effect on crime as people think or hope.
ROBERTS: Really?
DUBNER: The reason is this: When you have a regulation, like against guns, when there's a big existing black market working against that regulation, it kind of takes away the effect. In other words, you can make all of the gun laws you want, but if there's a thriving black market, as there is in this country for guns and almost anyone can still get a gun pretty easily, the law is not going to stop much crime. And that's what we found.
ROBERTS: How about the market for drugs?
DUBNER: Drugs is a big one, especially crack. The crack market turned out to be a very violent one. It was a struggle for turf. It was a struggle for profits. And people willing to kill and die for that. Crack has subsided. It hasn't gone away but it's subsided a lot and, therefore, a lot of the violence with it. So, all of these things that we're talking about that made crime fall in the last 20 years, the good news is, none of them seem poised to change greatly in the coming months or years. And therefore, the crime picture continues to look pretty good which is why you're not going to hear about it on the campaign trail.
ROBERTS: Well, I'm glad we're talking about it. They might not be talking about it. But it's something--
DUBNER: It's good to know what forces work in society, if for no other reason than to keep doing the right thing.
ROBERTS: Yeah. You always make us think. Hmm. Stephen Dubner, thank you very much.
DUBNER: Thank you, Robin.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
You can't keep
January 17, 2008 - 13:21 ET by taterYou can't keep lying...there is no good that comes from abortion. Even if a child is born into less than perfect circumstances they have the right to live their life.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
how many of our greatest
January 17, 2008 - 14:18 ET by TruthMongerhow many of our greatest historical figures would have been aborted by today's dispicable liberal hubris standards?
the noted researcher with the cure for cancer has probably been aborted once or twice already...
as was the peace activist that would have solved the ME conflicts...
and the energy expert that would have discovered the secrets of cold fusion...
on and on and on and on...
40 million just in the US alone since Roe v Wade
so is the pro-death crowd comprised of evil scum? or are they just dumb f*cking idiots?
I still can't quite tell...
Not a fan of abortion, but
January 17, 2008 - 14:32 ET by libertycitizenNot a fan of abortion, but imagine how many people weren't born because they weren't conceived in the first place.
What if Chuck Norris was never conceived?
January 17, 2008 - 15:03 ET by PopularTechWho would save us! It is unthinkable. God's will must be brought to the constitution!
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
amen brother! wait, it's
January 17, 2008 - 17:36 ET by TruthMongeramen brother!
wait, it's been there since the beginning...
"secure the Blessings of Liberty"
As well as...
ALABAMA 1901: We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama.
ARIZONA 1912: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.
ARKANSAS 1874 : We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own forms of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
CALIFORNIA 1879: We, the people of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
COLORADO 1876: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; do ordain and establish this Constitution for the "State of Colorado."
CONNECTICUT 1818: The people of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government, do, in order more effectual to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors, hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of civil government.
DELAWARE 1897: Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for the due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time after their Constitution of governments.
FLORIDA 1887: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its blessings and to form a more perfect government, insuring domestic tranquility, maintaining public order, and guaranteeing equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
GEORGIA 1887: To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
IDAHO 1890: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
ILLINOIS 1870: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations in order to form a more perfect government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
INDIANA 1851: To the end that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated: We, the people of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.
IOWA 1857: We, the people of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:
KANSAS 1863: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the State of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit:
KENTUCKY 1891: We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
LOUISIANA 1974: We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
MAINE 1820 and 1876: We, the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and imploring His aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine, and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
MARYLAND 1867: We, the people of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
MASSACHUSETTS 1790: We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit and solemn compact with each other; and for forming a new Constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain, and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
MICHIGAN 1909: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
MINNESOTA 1857: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
MISSISSIPPI 1890: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking his blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
MISSOURI 1945: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State.
MONTANA 1889: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a State government, do in accordance with the provisions of the enabling act of Congress, approve the twenty second of February AD 1889, ordain and establish this Constitution.
NEBRASKA 1875: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.
NEVADA 1864: We, the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect government, do establish this Constitution.
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1784: Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason, morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through society by the institutions of the public worship of the Deity.
NEW JERSEY 1947: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hat so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
NEW MEXICO 1912: We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a State government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
NEW YORK 1895: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
NORTH CAROLINA 1876: We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of these blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.
NORTH DAKOTA 1889: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
OHIO 1851: We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
OKLAHOMA 1907: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
OREGON 1859: We, the people of the State of Oregon, to the end that justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution.
PENNSYLVANIA 1874: W, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
RHODE ISLAND 1843: We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations do ordain and establish this Constitution of Governments.
SOUTH CAROLINA 1895: We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.
SOUTH DAKOTA 1889: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of South Dakota.
TENNESSEE 1870: That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience...
TEXAS 1876: Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
UTAH 1895: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
VERMONT 1793: That all men have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God: and that no man ought to or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience, nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.
VIRGINIA 1902: That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other.
WASHINGTON 1889 We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.
WEST VIRGINIA ( ): Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of west Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.
WISCONSIN 1848: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, forms a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution.
WYOMING 1889: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
When they tried to abort Chuck Norris....
January 18, 2008 - 12:53 ET by mattmthe Doctor died.
well God concieved
January 17, 2008 - 17:28 ET by TruthMongerwell God concieved everybody before he made the universe so my Christianity card recuses me
otherwise it's probably one of them thar infinity concepts
unwanted children are
January 17, 2008 - 15:06 ET by motherbeltunwanted children are basically at a much greater risk for being born
into the circumstances where they're more likely to lead a criminal
life. Not every unwanted child by a long stretch, but typically." Typically means conforming to a type.
He just said not every child, but typically....meaning mostly. In other words, it's rare that an "unwanted" child would grow up and not become a criminal. And by aborting those kids we are doing a good thing for society??????What a load of hogwash.
I suppose every woman who has an "unwanted" pregnancy ignores the kid, doesn't take care of him or instill any morals in him and as soon as possible leaves him to the streets to fend for himself and join a gang. None of them (mothers) ever grow up and own up to their responsibility and raise decent kids. Not according to Dubner; that's not "typical."
And even worse is Robin Roberts sitting there as if she's at the feet of Yoda, absorbing his wisdon, nodding and saying "Sure, sure."
Disgusting.
This author would've been
January 17, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Chris NormanThis author would've fit right in Germany in the 1930's...
You're absolutely right,
January 17, 2008 - 15:08 ET by motherbeltYou're absolutely right, Chris. Hitler thought he was doing "the right thing" for society by weeding out "inferior" humans. Mr. Dubner just added another class to those not worthy of life: potential criminals, by the circumstances of their birth.
Actually, one does not need
January 17, 2008 - 15:46 ET by stratmanActually, one does not need to leave the USA in order to "fit in":
Disgusting effete elitists just doing what's "good" for society.
Mr. Freakurnazi needs a good whoopin' like he used to get when he was a kid on the playground.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Here's an irony for you:
January 17, 2008 - 15:58 ET by motherbeltHere's an irony for you: Peter Singer has said that he thinks parents should have 30 days to decide whether to let a child born with handicaps (Down syndrome etc) live.
Professor Singer holds a bioethics chair at Princeton University.
It's amazing what can be made palatable to hear, when it's dressed up as "science."
MB, That's absolutely
January 17, 2008 - 17:01 ET by Chris NormanMB,
That's absolutely chilling and stomach turning. Margaret Sanger, feminist heroine, was a known supporter of eugenics.
Margaret Sanger
January 17, 2008 - 17:11 ET by drillanwrYes, and I read/heard her push for abortion was stemmed in her aim to curb the "black" population in this country ...
The problem with the
January 17, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Chris NormanThe problem with the liberals wanting to "engineer society", is that it leads sooner or later, to these kind of proposals. In some societies, it leads to them actually being carried out.
libs are just trying to
January 17, 2008 - 17:58 ET by TruthMongerlibs are just trying to legislate their morality like everyone else...
that's why we have democracy - may the best morality win:)
See, that's the thing. For
January 17, 2008 - 18:08 ET by Chris NormanSee, that's the thing. For the most part I don't want to "legislate" morality. I'd much prefer that the pressure be brought by a common morality. I would prefer not to see abortion banned by legislation. I'd rather see women not have them (except in absolutely necessary cases) because they realize that it's wrong.
Let me get this straight:
January 17, 2008 - 13:42 ET by lotrLet me get this straight: According to Dubner, "unwanted children are future criminals." That's quite a narrow-minded, strained, and elitist world view. So much for a person "overcoming adversity" in their youth. Sounds like a form of eugenics to me.
Nazis
January 17, 2008 - 14:14 ET by iveseenitallAbortion---The Nazis performed it on those they wished to punish and those they wished to exterminate. It was part of the "final solution". Nonetheless, even many of them admitted that it is an inhumane abomination. At the war trials it was considered an offence against humanity,worthy of punishment. Yet in 2008, our "liberals" believe it is just fine. They go as far as to support partial-birth abortion. Who are the Nazis and fascists of today--the "liberals" maybe? I thought the "liberals" abhored the Nazis. BTW, how any "woman" could sit and listen to this guy without protest is beyond me. Could it be Roberts is part of the same "feminists" cowards who wouldn't comdemn Bill Clinton?
The modern "liberal" mantra--"Every vote counts,but not every life"
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
perpetual paroxysms of projection
January 17, 2008 - 14:44 ET by needleIronically (if you can call it that), in perpetual paroxysms
of projection illiberal Liberals are constantly calling conservatives Nazis.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Preemptive capital
January 17, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Chris NormanPreemptive capital punishment? I wonder if this has any inkling of how sick and twisted this idea really is?
Dubner is no crank. You
January 17, 2008 - 14:35 ET by libertycitizenDubner is no crank. You may not agree with his argument, but the fact that he is willing to make such a daring claim is testament to freedom of expression in this country. Whether or not abortion is involved, there's no question that unwanted, unparented children who run riot are more likely to become criminals than children who are loved and taken care of by two diligent parents. That's a fundamental conservative argument, isn't it?
Kill them???
January 17, 2008 - 15:12 ET by iveseenitallSo just kill any child you believe may "end up" a criminal or a drug addict? Beyond the obvious ignorance of that argument, who makes the decision?--- any woman who thinks it's in her best interest?, the govenment?, the "liberals"? Scheeze!
BTW, there has to be limits on irresponsible "freedom of expression".
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Chuck Norris will decide
January 17, 2008 - 15:13 ET by PopularTechWho else?
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
He isn't recommending
January 17, 2008 - 16:04 ET by libertycitizenHe isn't recommending abortion, just trying to understand a possible outcome of its legalization back in the '70s. As for the decision, in US law, it's the woman who decides.
And BTW, introducing limits on "irresponsible" freedom of expression is scary, unwise and deeply un-American. If you want to be just like every other country out there, regulating speech and telling people what they can think, then go for it. Not me.
Premptively killing a
January 17, 2008 - 15:20 ET by lotrPremptively killing a developing human being in utero is not a solution. A person is innocent until they commit the crime, not beforehand. Forecasting the weather is hard enough -- forecasting a human being is impossible (and taking pre-emptive measures based upon the quack-forecast is unethical). BTW, anybody care to discuss the per-capita racial breakdown of abortions?
"...the fact that he is
January 17, 2008 - 20:45 ET by robert108"...the fact that he is willing to make such a daring claim is testament to freedom of expression in this country."
Not really; it's just a demonstration of the arrogance of the lefties; they are no longer afraid to go public with their Eugenics beliefs, combined with the idea that they know what's best for all of us.
Nothing new here.
"That's a fundamental conservative argument, isn't it?"
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but killing unborn humans is the exact opposite of conservatism.
What is those children were
January 17, 2008 - 13:51 ET by rbosqueWhat is those children were the key to stopping AIDS/cancer/???
Maybe one of theose kids had the keys to stop terminal stupidity among elitist Facsist / liberals?
Oops. "if".
January 17, 2008 - 13:52 ET by rbosqueOops. "if".
Tinfoil Hatted Leftist Loon
January 17, 2008 - 13:51 ET by sharinliteI firmly believe that we should have local, state and federal laws on the books that requires anyone opening their mouth or writing down their insane opinions be required to post an email adress and/or a phone number. We could then contact the idiot and at least give them a piece of our minds.
It is a good thing Stephen Dubner is not a conservative.
January 17, 2008 - 13:53 ET by R D HelmIf he were, the charges of racism would be reverberating off the walls:
DUBNER: Drugs is a big one, especially crack. The crack market turned
out to be a very violent one. It was a struggle for turf. It was a
struggle for profits.
I think it quite possible that this man is a white liberal closet racist. Not that there is anything new about that....
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD - they did pin the Racism of Freakonomics on a Conservative
January 17, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Dee BunkBill Bennett. He was talking about this book on his show and he was refuting it by saying that it would be like saying if you got rid of black babies crime would go down. He said that would be wrong and horrible to say. He was saying it was flawed philosophy and they took him out of context making it seem like he said reducing the amount of black babies would reduce crime rates.
It was disgusting. The Freconomics study is actually saying that (in an underhanded unspecific way) that reducing babies in poor minorities would make crime go down and no one cares. Then actually turn something Bennett said around and attributed this authors philosophy to him.
Ah! There ya go! Thanks,
January 17, 2008 - 14:23 ET by drillanwrAh! There ya go!
Thanks, I didn't see your post before I replied to balboa.
Dee,
January 17, 2008 - 14:56 ET by R D HelmNow that you mention it, I remember that little dust up. My suspicion at the time, which still holds today, was that Bennett was aggressively targeted so as to deflect attention away from the original author.
I have long believed that many of our white liberal friends, who are such rabid supporters of abortion, are the true racists among us, given the rather high percentage of abortions that take place in the black community.
They also appear to have it rigged so that the ones they are not able to kill outright grow up in an endless cycle of poverty and dependence on government. Sounds like the perfect plan to me, if your aim is to control, or worse, people of another race.
If this were 1930's Germany, this Dubner guy would most likely have a standing dinner invitation from Adolf Hitler himself. I'm sure that, given that old teutonic efficiency, they would have been able to wedge him in between Hitler and Joseph Goebbels without breaking a sweat.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Woe to those who call evil good
January 17, 2008 - 13:57 ET by vrwc13Isaiah 5:20 (New International Version)
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
...woe indeed
v
"I find myself having to
January 17, 2008 - 14:15 ET by PopularTech"I find myself having to read for an hour or so before I can fall
asleep. And thanks to the Gideons, I've got good material." - Mitt
Romney
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
"Faith doesn't just
January 17, 2008 - 19:12 ET by vrwc13"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
v
I've read the last page of the Bible. It's all going to turn out all right. - Billy Graham
Wasn't there some
January 17, 2008 - 14:07 ET by balboaWasn't there some politician who said that if every black family had an abortion the crime rate would go down? Anyone remember that?
That was taken out of
January 17, 2008 - 14:15 ET by mattmThat was taken out of context and deliberately misrepresented, and you damned well know it, Bal!
Go sit in the corner.
Bal and mattm
January 17, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Dee Bunksee my comment above
It was Bill Bennett, and here's the part they left out
January 17, 2008 - 14:25 ET by RJLed by Media Matters, the left deliberately and gleefully misrepresented his comments by leaving this part out:
"That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
Dude, I didn't recall
January 17, 2008 - 14:25 ET by balboaDude, I didn't recall exactly what it was, but I vaguely remembered it being similar to this, which is why I was asking. Easy, there!
bal -
January 17, 2008 - 14:22 ET by drillanwrOf what you speak:
Not sure it was a "politician" ... might have been either Newt Gingrich or Bill Bennett, and I'm recalling it was Bennett who made some remark on his radio show (not exactly in the context you mentioned) that got him into boiling hot water ... Google his name and the subject matter ... and PLEASE, choose a reliable source for the whole story?
Thanks
Maggie
I remember the context very
January 17, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Jack BauerI remember the context very well. Wasn't it Bill Bennett? (Could be wrong.)
His point was deliberately misread, of course by people trying to make him say the opposite of what he clearly said.
He was against abortion.
He merely pointed out that if one followed the logic of the argument, then using statistics which showed that the crime rate and imprisonment rate was so much higher amongst African-Americans, it could be argued that aborting black babies must reduce the crime rate.
H thought the idea was appalling.
JB
January 17, 2008 - 14:31 ET by drillanwrRight! It's coming back to my Swiss cheese memory now. And nobody wanted to hear his explanation or the full context ... Just ran with the perceived filth.
drill - and I shoild have
January 17, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Jack Bauerdrill - and I shoild have said.
Bennett thought the idea was appalling. As do I, and I suspect, do most conservatives.
Y'know Bal, the blog won't
January 17, 2008 - 14:32 ET by tracheostomyY'know Bal, the blog won't up and disappear if you take a few minutes to do some actual research before you start making veiled accusations.
Names, dates, that sort of thing.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I didn't accuse anyone of
January 17, 2008 - 14:50 ET by balboaI didn't accuse anyone of anything.
And I think I'm the only one that's not allowed to ask a question of the group. I'll add that to the list:
1. Can't ask any questions pertaining to children.
2. Don't ask a general question of the group.
It's a good way to reduce
January 17, 2008 - 14:11 ET by mattmIt's a good way to reduce Liberalism, too. But seriously folks, can any rational person actually believe this? The same geniuses probably oppose the death penalty, stronger law enforcement, tougher sentencing, etc. etc. Typical.
Why do you think Bush is funding them!
January 17, 2008 - 14:12 ET by PopularTechThey keep wages up! Abortions = Good for the Economy
Bush's Abortion Funding
Vote Huckabee so he can unleash Chuck on the Baby Killers.
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
You guys are going about
January 17, 2008 - 14:13 ET by MikeBYou guys are going about this from the wrong direction. The basic premise is correct. Where the author fails is the stage in life in which the abortion occurs. Prenatal abortions won't do much, if anything, for the crime rate. But post-natal abortions would help quite a bit. Someone commits a murder: abort them. Someone commits rape: abort them. Someone lies about being raped: abort them. Someone commits armed robbery: abort them. As long as the post-natal abortions were swift and certain, the crime rate would go way the h**l down.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Dubner did touch on
January 17, 2008 - 14:42 ET by RESTLESS 1Dubner did touch on this.
"Right. Capital punishment, it turns out is not really a deterrent on crime because of the way it's carried out in this country, the long lag and so on. If we were to be the kind of country where capital punishment were carried out the minute after you committed or were convicted of a crime and you killed people on the spot that would change the scenario."
Couldn't agree more. Here in Texas, as much as this state has executed criminals, there is still about 9.6 years between conviction and carrying out the punishment. Some have been on death row here for 20 years. That would be the only reason I can see on why the death penalty is not a deterrent and why death row is so expensive.
Where's the friggin' Tylenol?!?
January 17, 2008 - 14:17 ET by drillanwrGood Christ!
Capital punishment, is not a deterrent on crime ... but abortion IS?!? So, we punish humanbeings who have never done anything but simply exist with death, while granting life to those who have done the most horrific of crimes?
Why is it conservatives who find this method/line of thinking completely inhumane, racist, and WRONG??!?? But liberals just casually nod along with it?
The fact of the friggin' matter is a very large percentage of abortions are done for women who are NOT in poverty situations. A very large percentage of crime is in our poverty areas of our society ...
Mr. Dubner, your "New Math" just don't fly.
Raindance analysis
January 17, 2008 - 14:33 ET by KC MulvilleIf unwanted children cause crime, the logical response is to "want" those children. But some will complain that you can't manufacture love and affection. Therefore, they are forced to argue that the right to live is directly dependent on the affection their caregivers have for them. That is the ultimate slippery slope, i.e., if you accept that argument, you lose the right to argue against atrocities that are based on the same argument.
For anyone who then complains that those unwanted children statistically go on to commit more crime, the appropriate logical response is to outlaw sex among people who won't want their children. Show of hands for that one? This argument is silly. Throw out morality, and we can "solve" a lot of problems. Some might even call it a final solution to all our problems.
The only premise that these people never question is the permission to have sex on demand, without consequences. Their every argument holds society responsible for the consequences of unacceptable sexual behavior. They never hold the individuals themselves responsible. That's the solution that really works in the real world.
Off on a bit of a tangent
January 17, 2008 - 14:41 ET by FlashmanOff on a bit of a tangent but I was reminded by his comments about a comic book character called Judge Death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Death
Judge Death is a fictional character of the Judge Dredd universe recounted in the UK comic 2000 AD. He is the leader of the Dark Judges, a sinister group of undead law enforcers from the alternate dimension of Deadworld, where all life has been declared a crime since only the living commit crimes. After years of appearing in Judge Dredd stories, he later got his own series in the Judge Dredd Megazine and in 2000 AD.
Cause and Effect
January 17, 2008 - 14:41 ET by Hunter12This author is an idiot. How do you filter all the liberal practices against low-income families for the last 30 years out of the equation.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Killing a baby lowers the crime rate?
January 17, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Gary HallMmm - “Stephen is here to talk about a subject that no one else is talking about and to help us understand why people are no longer talking about.
”Question: Stephen. What is abortion?
Answer: Well, I've spent so much time hanging out with the Hollywood elite, and had heard so much from a number of them on the peaceful ways of the Buddhist teachings, so I did a little research. And then when the opportunity arose, I pursued a conversation. At first when discussing the Dalai Lama, everyone was so peaceful and glowing, the talk of peace and compassion. I reached out and asked them about their views on abortion, as I was curious as to how they could find balance between his view and the stereotypical liberal view.
Whew, suddenly the atmosphere changed to static, and as I openly presented the Dalai Lama's view, I learned that the Dalai Lama was a neo-con right wing intolerant idiot, because according to the Teachings of the Buddha, five conditions must be present to constitute the evil act of killing. They are:
So you see, killing babies will definately result in a lower crime rate. MSM logic at work.
I wonder if the Dalai Lama will be invited back to Hollywood again?
Well, now I can see why
January 17, 2008 - 14:56 ET by jdhawkWell, now I can see why liberals call themselves the "tolerant" and "compassionate" ones. Here we have an interview by an African-American woman of a white male. The white male states, in other words, that unwanted children, especially those born to mothers who are African-American, impoverished, adolescent, uneducated, and single would have increased the crime rate in the US, but were aborted - saving the day!
Wow! It always amazes me the pretzel like machinations that liberals will go to adhere to their "belief" system. In this case, abortion is good . . .
Coulter is right, liberals are Godless.
jd, above I said I found
January 17, 2008 - 17:48 ET by motherbeltjd, above I said I found the worst part of that was Robin Roberts, not challenging him, but nodding and saying "Sure. Sure." as if she were absorbing wisdom from Yoda.
Pathetic. How could she listen to this, and not challenge him on any of it? She just moved on the next topic like a brain-dead robot.
Right
January 17, 2008 - 15:37 ET by iveseenitallRight on. Modern "liberals" are anti-family, anti-God, anti-country. Every day,every hour this is proved by what they say and do. It's not proved by what they "think", because they can't "think"; they just react out of instinct. Like Pavlov's dogs, just say words like "race", "gender", "war", "taxes", "rights", " George Bush", "Ricard Nixon",etc. and they jump out of their pants. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"