When Numbers Solve a Mystery

So we have discovered that killing 40 million innocent babies reduces the crime rate? Then why not try killing one million criminals and reduce the rate even more--with less slaughter--and more logic?

So now what? Do the ends justify the means? Is the WSJ going to take the stand that since there appears to be a tie between abortion and reduced crime levels we therefore need to support the killing of innocent unborn children in order to keep crime levels down? Isn't there something just a tiny bit incongruous in that?

I wonder if Mr. Levitt looked at the fact that most abortion clinics are located in poor, minority neighborhoods and that African-Americans and other minorities are overwhelmingly targeted by Planned Parenthood and company because of Margaret Sanger's own racism. If he did, is he then saying that this is good?

Where does this kind of thinking end? How about we all simply shoot ourselves so we won't have any problems whatsoever?

Color me skeptical. Crime rates started rising in, what, 1965? Was abortion outlawed in 1947 or something? Or were the parents of the baby boomers simply overwhelmed by their brood? I guess I need to read the book.

By combining this with James Taranto's oft-mentioned "Roe Effect" about liberals having more abortions, one can only conclude that liberals are more likely to commit crimes. Still, it makes it difficult to oppose abortion when one's political opponents are voluntarily reducing their forward political influence and simultaneously providing the social benefit of reducing overall crime rates. What's a conservative to do? Vive la Roe!

A key factor in the decrease of crime from the 1980s to the '90s should also be the movement of the largest Boomer cohort was moving from their 20's to their 30's. As with most social changes, the movement of that cohort has and will continue to have tremendous impact.

Mr. Levitt makes the best argument for keeping abortion legal. The criminals that would have been born would have killed many law abiding tax paying citizens.

Legalize all crime and the crime rate would drop to exactly zero. Then ask the victims of those newly legal acts whether they prefer society under these new conditions and the answer is likely to be the same as one would get were it possible to inquire of the victims of abortion.

It's not simply a matter of fewer children, fewer crimes. The aborted children would have been relatively unwanted and therefore more prone to crime.

This sent shivers down my spin. Yes, it is within reason to conclude that abortion ended the lives before they were borne of those who would have ended up contributing to the crime rate. But, that can't be everyone. What about those who would have been positive contributors to society?

It's one thing to have as much information as is possible, however it is a very different horse of a different color to make the leap to go from being partially sure to which road being taken.