Is Your Local Abortionist the New Crime Fighting Superhero?
Thanks to Steven Levitt's Freakonomics we all know that legalizing abortion was responsible for the dramatic drop in crime in American cities, right? Not quite. In a series of pieces on his website, the incredibly prolific Steve Sailer has leveled a devastating critique of Levitt's theory.
The basic gist of Sailer's debunking is that Levitt's theory fails in two ways. First, the first generation of teenagers from whom the worst would-be offenders were supposedly purged by abortion went on one of the bloodiest murder sprees in American history. Second, Levitt's assumption that abortion reduces unwanted births ignores the fact that legalizing abortion actually increased unwanted pregnancies. Taken together this amounts to a knock-out blow against Freakonomics most famous chapter.
The basic gist of Sailer's debunking is that Levitt's theory fails in two ways. First, the first generation of teenagers from whom the worst would-be offenders were supposedly purged by abortion went on one of the bloodiest murder sprees in American history. Second, Levitt's assumption that abortion reduces unwanted births ignores the fact that legalizing abortion actually increased unwanted pregnancies. Taken together this amounts to a knock-out blow against Freakonomics most famous chapter.
posted by Manhattan Transfer at 3:07 PM
Comments:
They're both idiots.
Sailer, on the thought process of a young underclass woman: "Will having kids hold back your career? Well, if you have an IQ of 80 and are looking for a reason to drop out of high school anyway, then no."
Also, I don't see goof support for the second part of Sailer's crit., that "the much larger effect of legalizing abortion was to increase unwanted pregnancies".
There are too many factors at play here to prove causation rather than correlation, but neither man seems interested in proving anything, only in seeming to. I'm surprised you find this critique devastating.
Sailer, on the thought process of a young underclass woman: "Will having kids hold back your career? Well, if you have an IQ of 80 and are looking for a reason to drop out of high school anyway, then no."
Also, I don't see goof support for the second part of Sailer's crit., that "the much larger effect of legalizing abortion was to increase unwanted pregnancies".
There are too many factors at play here to prove causation rather than correlation, but neither man seems interested in proving anything, only in seeming to. I'm surprised you find this critique devastating.
Steve Sailor chose to critique the dumbed-down layman's version of Levitt's theory, and then complain that it's "slap-dash." Levitt's approach is more rigorous in his academic journal presentations than in his best-seller 'economics for the masses and written by some other dude' version. Levitt is widely regarded in his field for rigorously backing up his work -- something very important to be able to do when you make claims like these in econometric journals.
And, the critique is really annoying -- includes semantic arguments, is whiny, is ridden with exclamation points, and takes silly cheap shots (none of which damn the argument, but still make him hard to take seriously). I am also surprised you find this critique devastating.
And, the critique is really annoying -- includes semantic arguments, is whiny, is ridden with exclamation points, and takes silly cheap shots (none of which damn the argument, but still make him hard to take seriously). I am also surprised you find this critique devastating.
I don't think either of them are idiots. There's a lot of good stuff in Levitt's book. Unfortunately, the most hyped element of Freakonomics is the abortion-cut-crime theory, and there are real problems with it.
There's fairly robust evidence suggesting that as the availability of abortion increases so do unplanned pregnancies. This paper does a fairly good job of summarizing some of it.
There's fairly robust evidence suggesting that as the availability of abortion increases so do unplanned pregnancies. This paper does a fairly good job of summarizing some of it.
Sam, I don't think it's unfair for Sailer to take on a theory put forth in a prominent and popular book on the terms on which it is presented.
Oh come on.
This is just another transparant attempt by you to rail against abortion and crawl up Sailer's dirthole.
This was boring last year already.
This is just another transparant attempt by you to rail against abortion and crawl up Sailer's dirthole.
This was boring last year already.
# posted by 
: 11:14 PM, June 22, 2005
: 11:14 PM, June 22, 2005
I think I'm winning the struggle for the most angry and irrational comments. Hey, Krucoff, does that get me a promotion?
Steve Sailer here ...
One commenter questions the evidence that legalizing abortion increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. That comes straight out of Freakonomics, where Levitt and Dubner write that after legalization, ""Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent …"
Levitt knows quite well that he's misleading readers by claiming that legalized abortion greatly cut down on the number of "unwanted" births each year, when he admits in passing that it mostly drove up the number of unwanted pregnancies. But, he can't come out and admit what the actual effect of legalizing abortion was on "unwantedness" because that would raise serious doubts about his most famous theory.
What I see above are fairly typical responses to criticism of Levitt's theory: no factual replies, just appeals to authority based on the notion that Levitt's a glamorous superstar, so how could he be wrong? And, well, sure his theory fails the basic tests of historical plausibility, but that just shows how ineffably brilliant it is. Sure, Sailer can put together some simple-minded graphs that show the exact opposite happened than what Levitt's theory says should have happened, but Levitt uses ... a complicated model with lots of assumptions! So, it's got to be right!
There's a basic rule in science that large assertions need large evidence. Levitt hasn't come close to meeting the burden of proof he's taken on.
One commenter questions the evidence that legalizing abortion increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. That comes straight out of Freakonomics, where Levitt and Dubner write that after legalization, ""Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent …"
Levitt knows quite well that he's misleading readers by claiming that legalized abortion greatly cut down on the number of "unwanted" births each year, when he admits in passing that it mostly drove up the number of unwanted pregnancies. But, he can't come out and admit what the actual effect of legalizing abortion was on "unwantedness" because that would raise serious doubts about his most famous theory.
What I see above are fairly typical responses to criticism of Levitt's theory: no factual replies, just appeals to authority based on the notion that Levitt's a glamorous superstar, so how could he be wrong? And, well, sure his theory fails the basic tests of historical plausibility, but that just shows how ineffably brilliant it is. Sure, Sailer can put together some simple-minded graphs that show the exact opposite happened than what Levitt's theory says should have happened, but Levitt uses ... a complicated model with lots of assumptions! So, it's got to be right!
There's a basic rule in science that large assertions need large evidence. Levitt hasn't come close to meeting the burden of proof he's taken on.
Fact: This "increased availability of abortion" trope is nonsense--87% of all US counties lacked an abortion provider in 2000. Which, along with the increasing number of states who require parental notification, is the reason why unwanted pregnancies are up. Then why is violent crime down? It's a post hoc fallacy.
Now for incendiary conjecture: It'd be nice if the bourgeois motherfuckers who would like to see an end to reproductive choice would step up to the plate and a)stop overpopulating the earth with their WASPy noblesse oblige offspring and b)adopt some children who're actually born in the USofgoddamnA instead of going on some Third-World Pound Puppy Expedition.
Now for incendiary conjecture: It'd be nice if the bourgeois motherfuckers who would like to see an end to reproductive choice would step up to the plate and a)stop overpopulating the earth with their WASPy noblesse oblige offspring and b)adopt some children who're actually born in the USofgoddamnA instead of going on some Third-World Pound Puppy Expedition.
Sailer: Where's the appeal to authority in my earlier comment? Where do I defend Levitt? How come no response to me pointing out your characterization of the underclass? And, looking through your piece again, I still see only correlation. So, still, no devastation.
One could make the case that the argument on either side is unprovable. There is, at this point in history, simply too little evidence, and there are too many factors in such a huge phenomenon as a change in crime rate. What's troubling is that either side will use the debate as an argument for or against a woman's right to an abortion (and I'm not saying that you do this in your analysis).
One could make the case that the argument on either side is unprovable. There is, at this point in history, simply too little evidence, and there are too many factors in such a huge phenomenon as a change in crime rate. What's troubling is that either side will use the debate as an argument for or against a woman's right to an abortion (and I'm not saying that you do this in your analysis).
" How come no response to me pointing out your characterization of the underclass? "
You didn't point out anything, much less raise any factual objection to the statement, you just _quoted it_. What's to respond to?
It's not my statement, by the way, it comes from an email from a former social worker with years of experience working with inner city residents.
You didn't point out anything, much less raise any factual objection to the statement, you just _quoted it_. What's to respond to?
It's not my statement, by the way, it comes from an email from a former social worker with years of experience working with inner city residents.
Dana,
I hear people site that statistic every now and then but I'm never sure what it's supposed to prove. What's more, we're talking about an increased availability between two periods of time (before Roe and after), and your static county number doesn't tell us much about that.
I hear people site that statistic every now and then but I'm never sure what it's supposed to prove. What's more, we're talking about an increased availability between two periods of time (before Roe and after), and your static county number doesn't tell us much about that.
Fewer women are having abortions now than 15 years ago. Is that because they're opting to choose life? Or is it because it's not so easy to get an abortion anymore?The point of that citation is that it's a myth that abortions are more widely available than they were before Roe v. Wade. Take, for example, North Dakota, where abortions are not available in 98% of the counties. The figure is also 98% in SD, 91% in WY, 93% in TX, and 91% in Ohio. In the case of ND, 77% of the women in the state lived in the counties that didn't provide abortions.
I find Sailor's assertion that "states like North Dakota are largely irrelevant to national crime trends" in that there is a considerable amount of crime--particularly drug-related crime--in these sparsely populated states. NTM the growing numbers of the patriot movement.
We're going to see a steady decline in doctors willing to perform abortions because we'll lose them to retirement, and many medical schools no longer make learning the practice compulsory (which is ridiculous--do these future doctors imagine there never being an instance where they might need to know how to do this?). And because 43 states have laws that make it illegal for anyone other than a physician to perform an abortion--and this includes nonsurgical procedures like RU-486--abortion could become something that's only hypothetically available.
(Anecdotally, a close friend's father was an OB-GYN in Little Rock, practically till his death last year in his 80s. He performed abortions. He wore a flak jacket to work. The only reason he risked his life, and didn't retire earlier, is that he was one of six abortionists in the state of Arkansas at the time.)
I find Sailor's assertion that "states like North Dakota are largely irrelevant to national crime trends" in that there is a considerable amount of crime--particularly drug-related crime--in these sparsely populated states. NTM the growing numbers of the patriot movement.
We're going to see a steady decline in doctors willing to perform abortions because we'll lose them to retirement, and many medical schools no longer make learning the practice compulsory (which is ridiculous--do these future doctors imagine there never being an instance where they might need to know how to do this?). And because 43 states have laws that make it illegal for anyone other than a physician to perform an abortion--and this includes nonsurgical procedures like RU-486--abortion could become something that's only hypothetically available.
(Anecdotally, a close friend's father was an OB-GYN in Little Rock, practically till his death last year in his 80s. He performed abortions. He wore a flak jacket to work. The only reason he risked his life, and didn't retire earlier, is that he was one of six abortionists in the state of Arkansas at the time.)
"Will having kids hold back your career? Well, if you have an IQ of 80 and are looking for a reason to drop out of high school anyway, then no." Explain why this quotation was included in the article? Does having a low IQ and seeking to justify quiting school represent the typical situation for anyone? For whom? If this description is not meant to suggest anything about the underclass, why was it included in the piece?
Because an IQ of 80 is about average for members of the underclass. At least 20 million Americans have IQs of 80 or under.
You really need to learn some basic facts about America.
You really need to learn some basic facts about America.
Dana,
I appreciate your contribution to this debate but I still don't understand the import of the statistic you cited. To paraphrase an old election law case we read in law school, trees don't have abortions, women do. Counting by counties seems irrelevant.
I take it your larger point is that abortion isn't (or wasn't) more available after Roe than before. This seems counter-intuitive and I would like to see the evidence on this point. More importantly for the question we're dealing with here, you're point would strengthen the critique of the "abortion cuts crime" analysis because if abortion wasn't actually more available after legalization, it's very hard to see how legalization could have cut crime.
Post a Comment
I appreciate your contribution to this debate but I still don't understand the import of the statistic you cited. To paraphrase an old election law case we read in law school, trees don't have abortions, women do. Counting by counties seems irrelevant.
I take it your larger point is that abortion isn't (or wasn't) more available after Roe than before. This seems counter-intuitive and I would like to see the evidence on this point. More importantly for the question we're dealing with here, you're point would strengthen the critique of the "abortion cuts crime" analysis because if abortion wasn't actually more available after legalization, it's very hard to see how legalization could have cut crime.
