~ archived since 2018 ~

Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime* | The Quarterly Journal of Economics

July 3, 2022
19 upvotes

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/BlackPillScience.

/r/BlackPillScience archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime* | The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Author islandmiler
Upvotes 19
Comments 7
Date July 3, 2022 11:52 PM UTC (6 months ago)
Subreddit /r/BlackPillScience
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-the.1121521
https://theredarchive.com/post/1121521
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/vquc5a/impact_of_legalized_abortion_on_crime_the/
Comments

[–]BSP9000 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On the one hand, abortion surely has some effect, if for no other reason than there's a high black to white ratio of which women get abortions.

On the other, even Levitt thinks that legalized abortion only accounted for 10% of the drop in crime from the 90's, and thinks mass incarceration was a bigger factor. I think crack cocaine was an even bigger factor for high violence back then.

Everyone's freaking out about Roe v Wade, and it's like: yeah, if every state banned it maybe we'd get a 10% crime increase 20 years later. Since it's only the red states and women can still mostly get an abortion up to 20 weeks, I don't think it's gonna be a big deal.

Like, BLM protests already raised the murder rate by 30% in 2020. Just getting the police back to "as effective as they were in 2019" would be a bigger deal than fighting for abortion rights up to 40 weeks, or whatever it is the liberals want.

[–]tornado28 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Honestly this is the most persuasive argument for abortion for me. It's so intuitively obvious too. If your parents didn't even want you, why wouldn't you commit crime?

[–]islandmiler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only that, but the methods via natural experiment is now the standard in economics, QJE is one of three top journals (others being AER and Econometrica) to publish in in Econ, and Levitt is of University of Chicago and Freakonomics fame (Dubner is the hack in that relationship)

[–]Erophysia 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ends don't justify means. This could also be used as reasoming to justify mandatory vasectomies and tubal ligation for people to have children out of wedlock, which I would strongly prefer over abortion.

[–]tornado28 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think we agree that we should pursue ethical means of eugenics (and that is what we're talking about here) but avoid the unethical ones. I'd say the least controversial thing to do is what I'd call non-coercive eugenics, which would be efforts by the govt to make sure people have education about, access to, and incentive to use contraception. Pay women to go on Long Term Reversible Contraception and fund research for ltrc for men. This would reduce unplanned pregnancies without abortion and also without forced sterilization. I think a lot of the people you don't think should be having kids would voluntarily go for ltrc if you made it easy enough for them to get it.

As far as forced sterilization yes you could probably reduce crime in the next generation that way but it's widely considered to be a human rights violation. The universal declaration of human rights says that everyone has the right to marry and found a family. If you forcibly sterilize someone you take away that right.

As far as abortion goes well it's very controversial. Maybe you feel strongly that it's a human rights violation. Other people feel equally strongly that it's a human right. My view is the earlier in pregnancy the more acceptable, the later in pregnancy the less ok it is. Maybe this is too utilitarian for you but for me the fact that forcing women to have kids they don't want leads to bad outcomes like crime and poverty should factor into that tradeoff.

[–]Erophysia 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say the least controversial thing to do is what I'd callnon-coercive eugenics, which would be efforts by the govt to make surepeople have education about, access to, and incentive to usecontraception.

Absolutely. At the same time we, must encourage lifelong heterosexual monogamy and religiosity by all means necesary.

Pay women to go on Long Term Reversible Contraception and fund research for ltrc for men.

Absolutely. We already have things like RISUG that simply need funding, but longterm contraceptives and sterilization are things that the government should be strongly encouraging. For example, a woman gives birth out of wedlock, have her fill out a form to opt out of LTRC instead of opting in.

The universal declaration of human rights says that everyone has the right to marry and found a family. If you forcibly sterilize someone you take away that right.

That right is already infringed via due process. I.e. life imprisonment for committing crime. Taking away liberties of reproduction after said liberties are violated is merely a totally fair consequence of one's actions. Perhaps one's right can be restored if one chooses to be married. Of course, the legal institution of marriage will need to be fixed, e.g. getting rid of no-fault divorce.

It is also infringed by creating a system of non-adherence to lifelong monogamy, which in turn, creates incels.

Imagine this, a society where the right to reproduce is not something one is born with, but is earned by demonstrating sexual responsibility as one matures, and is finally lifted upon marriage.

My view is the earlier in pregnancy the more acceptable, the later in pregnancy the less ok it is.

Whilst generally true that such is the perception, it makes no sense. Either the fetus is entitled a right to life at the moment of conception, or the woman has a right to bodily and reproductive autonomy that ends at birth. Ending a a woman's right to bodily and reproductive autonomy at the second or third trimester is very arbitrary.

Anyways, like any technological or cultural change, there as to be a hard-learned lesson before society realizes the problem exists and that action needs to be taken. Whilst installing seatbelts in cars and installing AEDs in public buildings are easy fixes, something like this is something that will have to be learned over the course of generations, and by the time the elites realize something needs to be done, it will be too late.

This is why I think that if we ever discover aliens, they are going to be hyper-religious, hyper-fascist, or more likely both. Basically, the Covenant from Halo.

[–]Red_Lancia_Stratos 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Where is Steve sailer?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter