Their conclusion was that the drop in the crime rate experienced in the 90's was directly related to the passage of Rowe vs. Wade in the early 70's. That case legalized abortion in the US. Their hypothsis is that by the 90's the aborted fetuses would be of "prime crime committing" age. The fact that these pregnancies were terminated reduced the number of potential criminals, resulting in the reduction in crime some 20 years later.

They actually had some pretty compelling evidence. For example, the areas where abortion was legalized first experienced the earliest drop in crime. In areas where the per-capita abortion rate was higher the drop in crime was proportionally greater. The correlations go on ad-nauseum.

At first I was really stunned. I thought for sure these guys were left-wing fetus-killing radicals. But, as I continued to read their paper I really began to change my opinion of both the validity of their arguments, and about the entire abortion issue. I'm not saying that we should all become great advocates of abortion... in fact I am still pretty right-wing when it comes to the issue. However, when we're talking about aborting a totally unwanted pregnancy... it's at least cause for contemplation.

I am curious though as to whether you'd read this paper, heard the arguments, etc... and if so... wadda' you think? I realize that this is probably a little tooooo much to be printed in the Dirt... but I'd still appreciate your insight.

[I did read that report, which was featured on Salon.com a few months ago, and I'll tell you now what I thought back then. Of COURSE legalized abortion has had a positive impact on the crime rate! I mean, think about it... why do most women get abortions? Because they DON'T WANT a baby, and/or they understand that they are UNABLE to adequately care for a baby. Now, what happens to babies once they're born to people who have neither the inclination nor the capacity to properly care for them? They are neglected. They are abused. They are passed from one foster home to another like they were some kind of friggin' relay baton. And what happens to these unwanted, neglected, abused kids? They turn into monsters, that's what happens to them. Now, don't get yer old pal Jerky wrong. He's not saying all adopted kids turn into serial killers (although a disproportionate amount certainly do). Nor does he believe that the prospect of a lower crime rate is of sufficient philosophical weight to be considered, in and of itself, a defense of abortion on demand. However, the fact remains that right now, there are aproximately twenty million fewer people in this country who, had their mothers decided to carry them to term, would most likely have been at a much higher risk of becoming criminals than those of us whose mothers chose to welcome us into the world. - Jerky]

I believe that if a woman is raped, gets pregnant, and wants an abortion it is her right. BUT, I also believe that if a woman chooses to have sex with someone then she should be able to suffer the consequences. Then you have to consider whether or not she is financially, physically, mentally able to take care of the child.

I don't know...if a woman knows that she does not want the baby and she will not go out of her way to care for it, then should she not get an abortion to save the child from neglection, foster homes, etc.?

I agree with you Frackal...A woman says "It's my body" but it was also her body when she had sex.

I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

However that being said, it is a sad commentary on our society that we cannot come up with and implement a reasonable method of birth control. A method that is not so physically traumatic to the woman. Society must face the fact that many women and their partners are unable to prevent pregancy. Society should educate and make available reasonable options.

Society must face the fact that many young people are having sex and it must make available to them the most advanced methods of birth control available- irrespective of their parents wishes. I am sorry but parents are not in any position(how many parents do you know that are rational when it comes to their childrens sex life?) to be making this choice for their children, it should be the choice of the child(within reason). Personally I think that male birth control would go over much better in this respect, parents tending to protect daughters more.

Even though I am completely pro-choice, I was also surprised; I had never thought of it in that way. The arguement is quite compelling, and though I instinctively agree with it, I don't feel comfortable using it in a pro-choice debate as I found it to be theoretical rather than scientific; the debate is emotion riddled enough without using social theories....reason is, the anti-abortionists will say adoption could also accomplish the same. (That's a whole 'nother arguement I could debate)