Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Hot button issue!

I am reading the book Freakonomics. It is very interesting, and asks questions as an explanation of cause and effect on social issues that result in effects on the economy. Now, some younger moms may not remember, but in the 90's we had a crime rate that was escalating out of control. Then there was a huge drop in crime. Most people said it was do to the booming economy. This book states that that may have a small part in it, but sites a bigger more controversial cause. It states that about that time is when Roe V Wade was in court and abortion became legal. It continues to make its point by suggesting that the majority of women who were now able to get abortions, were poor, uneducated, and young. It further states that due to the availability of abortions for these women, they had less children whom...they suggest were destined to become a "criminal element" therefore, these babies were not being born, hence the crime rate eventually went down. I am very conflicted with these statements. I hate generalizations as a rule. Not all poor people who have kids have kids that turn out to be criminals. The authors of this book are stating that legalized abortion is the number one largest reason for the drop in crime. Stating that NYC went from having 1,200 and some murders a year down to around 500. Do you make this connection? Do you think they are right? Do you think it is the largest contributor of a lower crime rate for that period of time? This is NOT about your thoughts on whether or not you think abortion is right or wrong..plz stick to the topic. They do state that the women they dubbed Roe, eventually became a pro-life advocate...not that that makes any difference in what they refere to in this book. So...to make a short question long...do you agree? Do you connect the dots as they do?

Answer Question
 
salexander

Asked by salexander at 12:11 PM on Dec. 17, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 26 (28,366 Credits)
Answers (17)
  • I don't know. I think you could also reverse it and say that the reason why there is not a cure for every cancer or for AIDS yet is because the person who was meant to find this cure was aborted.

    JeremysMom

    Answer by JeremysMom at 12:19 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • I haven't read this book, so this is just based on what I know and what you said above. I've heard this theory before, and I think there are studies that seem to back it up. That said, correlation does not always mean causation, so I would want to know more about other changes in laws during that same time and figure out if they had any effect as well. There could be multiple factors, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that legal abortion helps reduced crime to some degree. I do think there was some states (not sure which ones without looking them up) changed their laws where they created a Three Strikes Law that gave people life imprisonment if they've committed serious crimes 3 times. It's possible that had an effect too. I wouldn't doubt that legalized abortion deters crime, but I would hesitate to say it's the only thing or most important change without knowing more about it.
    pam19

    Answer by pam19 at 12:31 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • I think it could be one possible scenario. I think some of the points they make do make sense but there is definitely more to the crime rate than that. 

    skittles1108

    Answer by skittles1108 at 12:32 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • That's a real simplification, I think. There's a lot more to it.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 12:37 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • idk
    san78

    Answer by san78 at 12:48 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • Ok, here is another one. They studied 5 day cares for 8 weeks. On average those daycares had parents who picked up their kids late about 5 times in those 8 weeks. So, they implemented a fee of $3.00 per child to cut down on late pick ups...why should daycare staff foot the bill for late pick ups? Result...late pick ups went through the roof. It was as if, putting a price on the late pick up was giving permission for parents to do so. So, this "fee" backfired and had an opposite result. The book is very worth the read. It addressing parenting, realestate, crime, you name it. I can't put it down...or my Kindle down anyway lol
    salexander

    Comment by salexander (original poster) at 12:51 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • Hmmm.....makes you think and kind of makes a sense.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:00 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • Wow horrible spelling there sorry:)
    salexander

    Comment by salexander (original poster) at 1:14 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • So, they implemented a fee of $3.00 per child to cut down on late pick ups...why should daycare staff foot the bill for late pick ups?

    -----

    That's interesting. That is such a low amount that it would seem to give permission to be late to those who aren't on a budget. Maybe a higher late fee and a limit on the maximum would have been a better option. Some flexibility is nice for those who are rarely late or a semi-emergency comes up like a traffic incident, but a higher fee might deter those who are habitually late.
    pam19

    Answer by pam19 at 1:18 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

  • That book sounds really thought provoking and interesting. I can see how some of that does make sense. I will check it out from my Library. Thanks!
    kerp1960

    Answer by kerp1960 at 1:38 PM on Dec. 17, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN