My problem with the Freakonomics stance on abortion, is that:
1) It claims so much of the percentage of the reduction in crime in the USA.
2) To my knowledge, has not addressed concurrent reductions in crime elsewhere, where there was no Roe v Wade factor. Romania excepted. Though when was lead removed from gasoline in Romania?
Romania was the study of the OPPOSITE effect, where the prohibition of abortion and mandated pregnancy had devastating impacts on their society. There used to be a very good documentary about it on Youtube, that since been removed.
That was my point, but I'm apparently an idiot. I thought that Levitt would have done the research on crime stats in Romania both before and after the fall of Ceausescu. Perhaps he couldn't be bothered, or didn't want to spoil his premise. According to Levitt's hypothesis, until approximately 15 years after the removal of Ceausescu from office, crimes would rise, and then start falling. When in reality, crime peaked about 1992 and has slowly dropped ever since. That's about 12 years too early.
My problem with the Freakonomics stance on abortion, is that:
1) It claims so much of the percentage of the reduction in crime in the USA.
2) To my knowledge, has not addressed concurrent reductions in crime elsewhere, where there was no Roe v Wade factor. Romania excepted. Though when was lead removed from gasoline in Romania?
Romania was the study of the OPPOSITE effect, where the prohibition of abortion and mandated pregnancy had devastating impacts on their society. There used to be a very good documentary about it on Youtube, that since been removed.
That was my point, but I'm apparently an idiot. I thought that Levitt would have done the research on crime stats in Romania both before and after the fall of Ceausescu. Perhaps he couldn't be bothered, or didn't want to spoil his premise. According to Levitt's hypothesis, until approximately 15 years after the removal of Ceausescu from office, crimes would rise, and then start falling. When in reality, crime peaked about 1992 and has slowly dropped ever since. That's about 12 years too early.
Actually, that 12 years early would be about right. After the initial baby boom, Romania developed a robust underground abortion industry as evidenced by the decline in their birth rates following the initial burst in pregnancies. Additionally, communist regimes are not known for accurate record keeping unless they benefit the regime.
However, Levitt and Dubner did address Decree 770 and their perception of it's impact on Romania:
In their book Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner make the argument that children that are born after their mothers are refused an abortion are much more likely to commit crimes or refuse to recognize authority when they reach adulthood. They further argue that the Decreței are exactly the same people who spearheaded the effort to violently overthrow Ceaușescu's regime in 1989. In that year, the oldest Decreței would have been 22 years old, in the general age range of most revolutionaries. Levitt and Dubner note that Romania was the only east-European communist country with strict anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws at the time, and also the only country whose ruler was violently overthrown and killed at the end of the Cold War. Most other such countries experienced a tumultuous, but peaceful, transition.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 07/06/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
If it was easy to have a black market in abortion under a totalitarian state that by decree is monitoring a woman's fertility constantly, then how hard would it be (relatively) to have an abortion prior to Roe v Wade in the USA? I'm thinking considerably easier. Especially in states that had the highest crime rate increases. So that's going to play havoc with the USA abortion statistics, lending less credence to Levitt's position.
In fact, if Levitt's hypothesis is true - that it was free access to abortion that stemmed rising crime in the 90's, then starting in 1974, the live birth rate in the USA should have taken a big hit. What with all those unwanted pregnancies being terminated, leading to fewer unwanted children becoming criminals fifteen or so odd years later. Only that wasn't the case. Birth rate had been in a steady decline starting in 1958, hitting a local minima in 1978, increasing until 1990, and then decreasing until present day. But hey, maybe it's those fewer kids being born since 1990 that stopped all that crime. That would jive with the crime stats from Romania. The timing correlates pretty darn well. Polio and ice cream anyone?
Secondly, either the statistics from Romania are valid, or they're not. One cannot pick and choose. So if you refute some statistics, you must refute all. In which case, Romania cannot be used as a data point, because none of their statistics can be trusted. Personally, I'm thinking that while probably not perfect, the numbers are good enough.
Thirdly, have you seen the documentaries on circumstances leading to the Ceausescu's execution? There weren't any 22 year olds to be found in the group that "tried", sentenced and executed them. Well maybe there were some in the firing squad - but the rest were certainly not anywhere near that young. Instead, they were more than likely the parents of those 22 and younger. Unless you believe that it was 22 year old generals making the decisions?
