It seems deadman, that you are not arguing against Levitt's hypothesis so much as you are arguing against statistics itself. Yes, we are all familiar with the fact that correlation does not prove causation. This is old news. The fact is that if after controlling for all the variables you can think of (as any decent economist would) you find that two things are still related (abortion and crime) then you have to accept what the evidence shows as being science's best guess. Throwing your hands up in the air and explaining "well, everything's a theory" when some scientific fact is inconvenient (be it evolution or this) is scientific relativism of the worst sort.
If you actually read the book, I think levitt makes a very strong moral and economic arguement against abortion despite the initial knee jerk reaction to his findings. Levitt should be comended for his willingness to report the truth, no matter how disturbing some people may find it.
One reason for legalizing abortion is the idea that abortion is a private matter and, undoubtedly, a matter of chose of every single woman in the United States.I am very intrigued with your persuasive essay on abortion, well,Persuasive Essay on Abortion because there is a lot of solid evidence which you clearly explained legal surgical abortions reply; Choose Life!
Now let’s talk about John Lott for a minute. Along with John Whitley, he wrote a paper on abortion and crime. It is so loaded with inaccurate claims, errors and statistical mistakes that I hate to even provide a link to it, but for the sake of completeness you can find it . Virtually nothing in this paper is correct, and it is no coincidence that four years later it remains unpublished. In a letter to the editor at Wall Street Journal, Lott claims that our results are driven by the particular measure of abortions that we used in the first paper. I guess he never bothered to read our in which we show in Table 1 that the results are nearly identical when we use his preferred data source. It is understandable that he could make this argument five years ago, but why would he persist in making it in 2005 when it has been definitively shown to be false? (I’ll let you put on your Freakonomics-thinking-hat and figure out the answer to that last question.) As Lott and Whitley are by now well aware, the statistical results they get in that paper are an artifact of some bizarre choices they made and any reasonable treatment of the data returns our initial results. (Even Ted Joyce, our critic, acknowledges that the basic patterns in the data we report are there, which Lott and Whitley were trying to challenge.)
While proponents of capital punishment allege that it can be applied as with the existence of sufficient due process, others contend that human life is irreplaceable and that “every person has the right to have their life respected” (Oppenheim, “Capital Punishment in the United States”).
ABORTION SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED Abortion is the worst thing a woman can do against human dignity It is a crime against life No woman has the right to kill a new living being.
To anyone who actually made it this far, I applaud you for your patience. Let me simply end with an analogy. Let’s say that we are living in a world in which global warming is taking place, but also a world in which El Nino occasionally leads to radical, short run disruptions in normal weather patterns. You wouldn’t argue that global warming is false because for a year or two we had cold winters. You’d want to figure out what effect El Nino has on winter weather and then see whether controlling for El Nino it looks like global warming is taking place. The impact of legalized abortion on crime is a lot like global warming — it is slow and steady and grows a little year by year. Crack is like El Nino, it comes in with a fury and then largely disappears. That is why I have invested so much time and effort in understanding both abortion and crack, and why the criticisms made against the abortion-reduces-crime hypothesis to date have not been very compelling.
“Assisted suicide allows a physician to end the life of a terminally ill patient upon the request of the patient, pursuant to properly executed legal documents” (Velasquez, Andre par 2) Assisted suicide when performed by a medical doctor with legal documents and witnesses should be legal.
I have 3 statistical questions regarding the Abortion Regression.(1) You say in the book that preganancies rose 30% post Roe v. Wade, but births declined 6%. Implying that Abortion is replacing other forms of Birth Control to a large extent. So states with High v. Low abortion rates may not be relevant. A state with a 36% abortion rate could be roughly equivalent to a state with a 6% abortion rate if they did not see the +30% increase. Should you look at (normalized) birth rates not abortions?(2) How are you measuring Crack in the regression? You say in the book that it isn't users it is dealers who commit the crimes. Therfore the relevant measure should not be useage but marginal gain for marginal turf gain. The crash in price is relevant not the level of use.(3) The logic of your paper argues that unwantedness leads to crime. The proxy for this in the bast is children in poverty and single-parent households. I would suggest using a variable for births into poverty and births to unmarried mothers as variables in your regression, so that you can isolate the degree of unwantedness attributeable to abortions. One of Sailer's key criticisms is that post roe v wade abortions possibly led to higher rates of "illegitimacy". So why not include that as a variable? Thanks,Jeff
So, a reasonable thing to ask yourself is: Was there anything else going on in the late 1980s that might be causing young Black males to be killing each other at alarming rates that might be swamping the impact of legalized abortion over a short time period? The obvious culprit you might think about is crack cocaine. Crack cocaine was hitting the inner cities at exactly this time, disproportionately affecting minorities, and the violence was heavily concentrated among young Black males such as the gang members we write about in Freakonomics. So to figure out whether this spike in young Black male homicides is evidence against legalized abortion reducing crime, or even evidence legalized abortion causes crime, one needs to control for the crack epidemic to find the answer. This is the argument that I have been making for years. First in the with Steve Sailer back in 1999, then in the , and now in .
To "the real me" -- actually, crime doesn't just "go in waves". Crime is a sociological phenomenon that follows distinct patterns based on historical and cultural influences that can be quantified and measure. To read the entire essay, then shrug and say, "Aw, crime just goes in waves and can't really be attributed to any one thing," is just to ignore factual data. This decision that we've made to simply ignore statistical and scientific data in favor of the "it's all too complex to explain with numbers (or fossils or carbon dating)" is starting to get on my very last nerve.A big reason crime goes up in the summertime is -- surprise! -- the heat. Ask any law enforcement officer. Is it the only thing? Probably not. But if you take into account that, as the weather warms, criminals and potential victims are outside more and in closer proximity, then it can be reasonably assumed that heat makes for more opportunity for crime. Add to that that extreme heat tends to make people cranky and unpleasant, and the possiblities for crime between non-criminals who simply lose their tempers rises as well. So, yeah. It's simply not logical to dismiss statistical data with a wave of your hand and the statement, "Well, there are many factors at work here. Who can say?" Statisticians can. Scientists can. Sociologists and anthropologists can. And with reasonably accurate precision.~C~