Based on current evidence we can conclude abortion lowers crime

Abortion itself My opponent makes a fatal flaw in his argument–it is considered a statistical fallacy–by comparing statistics worldwide. This argument ignores other factors. For example, if we used statistics from worldwide and applied it to the US there would be many problems with this. Why? Firstly one would have to look into law enforcement. Many countries, most countries, have different overall systems of policing. Many of which are weaker. Second, very important in this case, would be social problems. For example, all of the countries where it is illegal are very poor. Many reside in Africa, the Middle East, or in Latin America. In all of these places violence, such as rape, is extremely high. A higher rape rate would drive many to not have abortions, as rape, in many of these countries, is the only case abortions are allowed. In the Middle East, they are in many wars and polygamy is very common. Which would drive up the rape rate and abortion rate. In Latin America, very poor (poor people have abortions more often), would likely play a factor in this. They are also in many wars. As we can see, in all of the countries where it is legal, other factors explain the high abortion rates [1][2]. Further, even when abortion is legal many regulations stay in place. When looking at legalization, we see the illegal abortion rate rises after legalization. So even using my opponents point, we clearly see abortion increases crime, or has no effect [3]. Freakonomics/Levit hypothesis/Levit & Donahue lies This name is important. It is the name of a book, and a blog, which created debate. After Levit and Donahue published their paper on abortion and crime, this book just heated the debate. And my opponent cited the statistics. Lets break the two points down: foreign data, and U. S. data. Foreign Levitt made this claim to prove it had an international effect–and this was an outrageous claim that was investigated by scientists–and never replicated. For example, the data used for the U. K. was not replicated, and the trend was overall increasing (even after controls for other variables where put on) and, at best, had no effect on overall crime [4]. Another study conducted in 2008 looked into all of Levit’s data. The conclusion was not at all surprising. He found there is “no meaningful association between abortion and age-specific crime rates. ”[5] United states He misses the point. Many variables they did not account for was right to carry laws. There is significant evidence they can play a large role in crime, and they could explain the decrease. Also note the crack cocaine epidemic ended, logically reducing crime. This was likely one of the major reasons. And new legal definitions to life imprisonment and other law enforcement techniques where implemented. All likely, based on current evidence, is a larger role then abortion. But lets look at a historical portion of this, just for fun. This argument came up in 1972 under Nixon. It was thoroughly debunked, and put into junk science. Now Levit has come forward with an idea… if you look at the weight of academic data, we see it too should be thrown into junk science. Again, most analysis’s show abortion had many more adverse social effects then positive ones, which logically means Levit’s hypothesis is weak and that it is more likely it increases crime. As John Lott notes, he is a very respected man in the debate on both sides, “To understand why abortion might not cut crime, one should first consider how dramatically it changed sexual relationships. Once abortion became widely available, people engaged in much more premarital sex, and also took less care in using contraceptives. Abortion, after all, offered a backup if a woman got pregnant, making premarital sex, and the nonuse of contraception, less risky. In practice, however, many women found that they couldn’t go through with an abortion, and out-of-wedlock births soared. … All of these outcomes — more out-of-wedlock births, fewer adoptions than expected, and less pressure on men “to do the right thing” — led to a sharp increase in single-parent families. … Children raised out of wedlock have more social and developmental problems than children of married couples by almost any measure — from grades to school expulsion to disease. Unsurprisingly, children from unmarried families are also more likely to become criminals”[6] Now, here’s the objection. It saves unwanted children! !! Data supports this! What data? First, that one positive impact is outweighed by the negative ones [6], and second that “data” is un replicated and suffers from methodological problems. (Joyce 2008, 2001, Lott 2001, 2007, is examples of its non-replication… and many more dissenters exist. ) One study found his data was very flawed. Computer errors erode much of Levits data which he has been pointing too throughout the debate on abortion and crime. The study found, however, the data failed to control for many controls. Although they tried to account for it, the computer had a programming error and failed to to a complete control. When properly controlled, the abortion crime link disappears and in some cases shows increased crime rates [7]. Levit data? Haha. Problem with Levits theory “The true mark of a theory is without doubt its ability to predict phenomena. ” –Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 20[8] We can agree, science should be able to often predict phenomena, and the theory should be able to be correct right? Sorry abortion, the facts don’t fit the theory. As John Lott notes, “Deregulating abortion would then reduce criminality first among age groups born after the abortion laws changed, when the “unwanted,” crime-prone elements began to be weeded out. Yet when we look at the declining murder rate during the 1990s, we find that this is not the case at all. Instead, murder rates began falling first among an older generation — those over 26 — born before Roe. It was only later that criminality among those born after Roe began to decline. ”[6] What a good predictor. It is a very valid science! [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Using the UN definition of rape: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.christianaction.org.za... [4] . http://www.voxeu.org... [5] . http://papers.ssrn.com... [6] This is not a non-credible source, look at its author. . http://www.foxnews.com... [7] I read the actual paper online, but I used a simple abstract for the debate: . http://papers.ssrn.com... [8] . http://www.paulmacrae.com...