Roe v Wade and the crime rate
Posted by Moonage on 11 Apr 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics
This article was raised on a discussion board I like to read a lot ( I’m sure you all know what I’m talking about ). The topic raised today in the online beer hall was this article written several years ago:
Some of the responses to the original post have been:
- The Wall Street Journal has been talking about the Roe effect in politics, as well. Since conservatives are less likely to have abortions than liberals, the latter have been reducing their population relative to the former. Hence more Republican voters
- I would guess that conservatives are less likely to get pregnant in the first place though. The bible belters? Yeah. But the Wall Street types? Not so much.
Now, you can’t really argue with Levitt-Donohue’s math. But, what I would be concerned with is the narrowness of their results. Sure, people who don’t want to have kids make lousy parents for the most part. But, to assume the only thing that affects unwanted births is abortion is pushing my limit of belief. Here’s what I believe:
- People are more likely to postpone intentional conception than the previous generation.
- People are marrying later.
- Younger people seem to be more content with non-vaginal "non-sex" than previous generations.
- The over-all underage birth rate is at an all time low.
IMO, these are much more important factors than the Levitt-Donohue assumption that Roe v Wade has affected crime rates. If they don’t get pregnant, they have fewer criminals than if they got pregnant and most of them aborted. The statistic they omit is much more mathematically impacting than what they look at.
I’m not against Roe v Wade. But, I don’t believe Levitt-Donohue’s research is the end-all be-all some people are making it. It’s a part of the picture, but it’s a small part.
No Comments »
