Resolved: The evidence supports the Abortion-Crime link

I accept, thanks for having me.IntroductionThe theory can be found here(1.http://tinyurl.com...) where Donahue and Levitt argue that a relationship exist between crime and abortion and that if we were to legalize abortion, crime rates would decrease rapidly. Such a case did happen as the Supreme Court ruled abortion as part of a fundamental right(2.http://tinyurl.com...) in 1973. My argument is simple, how does an 'unwanted child' bring about crime and how does stigmatizing children based on parental socialization leads to youth delinquency.These 2 premise are interdependent in that both is geared to prove how having undesirable children potentially leads to crime. Finally, I will provide statistical evidence from Donahue and Levitt's journal.Social Theories Affirms Levitt-Donahue HypothesisThe idea of having unwanted children as potential risks for crime is affirmed by sociological evidence. In order to substantiate such claim, we can trace back to the internalization and the socialization of norms which society holds. Robert Merton proffers such a case detailing the concepts of internalization(3.http://tinyurl.com...). As he conducted his research in the US, he noticed that the american culture socializes and instills deep success ethics into its individuals. This is when children were taught to be 'unique, successful' and to do whatever it takes to brand themselves a name. This success ethic puts society into 2 separate goals, to achieve success by being a multi-millionaire or to fail miserably and rot in society's poorest slums. There is no alternative. The problem comes with the juxtaposition of both the idealistic success ethic and the reality at which the social system allows its peers to succeed. The more children born, the less chances there are for a proper social class differentiation, hence leading to an unequal share of success. The dilemma is even compounded if we were to factor in unwanted children."When a system of cultural values extols, virtually above all else, certain common success-goals for the population at large while the social structure rigorously restricts or completely closes access to approved modes of reaching these goals for a considerable part of the same population...deviant behavior ensues on a large scale."-R.Merton(4.http://tinyurl.com...)Deviant Behaviors or non conformist norms will inevitably leads to crime. This would then increase crime rates exponentially as a result of such consequence. If we were to reverse deviant behaviours by properly plan and produce desirable children, all of which are properly alligned with the social structure, then the results would be positive.The best explanatory predictor for criminal delinquency is the parent-child relationshipFurthermore, Donahue-Levitt claims that the simplest way to prove the theory is through evaluating smaller cohort sizes(1), especially with the onset of the legalization of Abortion.In this case, once cohort samples reached their high-crime late adolescent years, they are less likely to commit crime. The primary reason for this is that the children were seen as more desirable as families are presented with the choice to plan their way of 'doing it & producing it =P' without the fear of being forced to socialize an unwanted child. In addition to that, studies have found potential implications(5.http://tinyurl.com...) outlining the different effects of parental socialization to children. The key point within each study is that with each coming socialization process, from the typical gender-stereotype process to the rather complex emotional expression, all of them have garnered completely different results, thereby proving how formidable parental socialization is.It is perfectly clear that parents play an important role in socializing children because of the adverse effect it causes. Hence, this proves that the best explanatory predictor for criminal delinquency is in fact, the relationship of the parent and their child. And that if the parents neglected the care of their children which would then fall within the 'unwanted child' category as argued by Donahue-Levitt, the costs will be catastrophic as a decline in relationship would risk a decline in proper socialisation, thereby increasing the chance of deviant behavior/criminal behavior. An analogy can be similarly drawn when a child gets stuffed into a closet and left to rot for 16 years without any nurturation. The result would be calamitous as the socialisation process is neglected.Similarly the case can be applied to the above theory.Abortion-Crime StatisticsThis is one of the most common ways to substantiate the hypothesis further. Robert J.Barro said(6.http://tinyurl.com...)"Donohue and Levitt present three types of evidence to support their theory. First, the sharp rise in legal abortions-from fewer than 750,000 in 1973 to a plateau of around 1.5 million a year since the early 1980s fits with the timing of the drop in national crime rates since 1991...Secondly, a few states, including New York and California, legalized abortion by 1970, three years before the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. As the theory implies, the early legalizers experienced falling crime rates sooner than the rest of the country. Finally, abortion rates responded to the legalization differently across states, and those with the highest rates of abortion in the 1970s experienced the sharpest drops in crime in the 1990s."There is obviously a plethora of abortions after the supreme court's decision which cause the sudden drop in crime. States such as New York and California have experienced a particularly high abortion rate even before the supreme court's decision, if there is a correlation in that crime reduces before the ruling, the theory is obviously affirmed(1). Opponents of such theory would argue that the evidence presented overshadowed illegal abortions, which seems to obscure statistics. The answer to this is simple as it is possible to differentiate between both in terms of costs. There are obvious class differences, and these alone will decide who will be able and unable to abort.Besides, class wise, some people are unable to afford the procedure due to their materialistically deprived status. The costs of illegal abortion as noted by Kaplan(1) is $400 to $500 while the costs to enact a legal procedure for abortion after Roe v Wade is simply $80. The costs are phenomenally cheap, as such allows for those materialistically deprived to carry out such procedure without sacrificing their financial stability.