posted
Rabbit, I just want you to know that I am open to your sensible arguments against the theory OSC put forth. An interesting point. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to thank The Rabbit for showing us how it's done. No ridicule; no ad hominem; just reason.
I wonder what Freakonomics author would do with this one. It's pretty telling.
However, the abortion-stops-crime thing still might be true, if it turns out that women who would have aborted didn't give the baby up for adoption. This may be the case.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: They have some culpability, but not a large part, from my research.
So can you please let us know a bit more about your research and explain why your findings differ from those most widely held in the scientific community? Could you also give me some reasons why I should accept the results of your research rather than the majority of results which have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you all for the dialogue on my posts. It was very enlightening to me and I enjoyed having this conversation with you guys.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it puts a hole in argument at all. At least, not the argument presented in Freakanomics.
The book isn't saying that it's always the children born out of wedlock who are more likely to be criminals. That's not it claim, whatever OSC says. It's the children who are not well cared for that are likely to grow up to be criminals.
In the 50's, you say, that the children who were born out of wedlock were often given up for adoption (I don't know the validity of this claim, but let's assume that it's true). These children would be well cared for, most likely, which means that they won't grow up to be criminals.
Today, children born out of wedlock, just like children born into poverty, or children born to poorly-educated or abusive parents, are likely to be the children that are not well cared for. Therefore, it's these children who are likely to grow up to be criminals.
However, mothers today that don't want a child (which means they're unlikely to take good care of it), or simply believe that they can't take good care of a child (which is true for some mothers who aren't married or can barely make ends meet) have another option: abortion. So children that would have grown up in poor conditions (thus making them more likely to be criminals) instead are never born. Since there are fewer children growing up in poor conditions, there are fewer criminals 15 years in the future, when those not-born children would be starting to commit crimes.
To put it a different way: in the past there were children who didn't get good care. Today there are children who don't get good care. The fact that today those children who don't get good care are often those born out of wedlock doesn't mean that was true in the past. And it doesn't matter. What matters is the percentage of children who don't get good care.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the 50's, you say, that the children who were born out of wedlock were often given up for adoption (I don't know the validity of this claim, but let's assume that it's true). These children would be well cared for, most likely, which means that they won't grow up to be criminals.
But wasn't Rabbit's point that the intense rise in crime was caused by people born in this era? If they were so well cared for, it doesn't make sense.
One would have to make the case that the children not aborted were *not* well cared for. Or you could go the genetics route, (children born out of wedlock=criminal genes) which, quite frankly, makes me very uncomfortable.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other problem with Rabbit's argument is that there was a much greater social pressure to get married if a woman became pregnant. It is much more likely that the type of woman who might have an abortion today, would in that time have been forced to wed the father. So those children might not have all been adopted out. Instead they would have been raised in a home with parents who didn't wish to be married to each other, and were unprepared to be good parents to the child. I'm not sure that's any better.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky mentioned it, but I also recommend very highly The way we never were and the companion book The way we are.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, it's cute for you to say "Look at all these scientists who agree with me. Surely you cannot stand against this." Do you really need me to go down the list of scientific facts over the last few centuries that ended up being totally off base? I don't know about you, but if I learned anything in college I learned to draw my own conclusions.
Could I give you some reasons to disagree with some of the unassailable findings of articles which appeared in peer reviewed journals? Yes, I could. And by the way, just because an article is peer reviewed doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Are you familiar with the programming term GIGO? If you base your findings on bad data, your results are all but worthless. I really didn't want to get into this, but I get tired of all the global warming wolf crying.
I'll dig up some stuff when I get home (where it's all written down) and you can tell me your side.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really didn't want to get into this, but I get tired of all the global warming wolf crying.
So on what basis do you make your judgement that this is wolf crying? Are you an expert in the field yourself, and thus entitled to dismiss the evidence of experts?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't claim to be an expert in any field. I just try to find the evidence and draw my own conclusions. As I said, when I get off of work I'll try to collect my thoughts and present them in a cogent fashion.
Then you can trot out all the experts you want to make me look stupid. By the way, you don't need to be an expert to contradict the findings of an expert. It's not D&D, where arguments are decided by who has the stronger magic powers. If you see conclusions drawn from what you believe is suspect data, any rational person is obligated to object to it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just try to find the evidence and draw my own conclusions.
And you're suggesting that neither Rabbit nor the vast majority of environmental scientists out there who endorse this theory have done the same?
quote: If you see conclusions drawn from what you believe is suspect data, any rational person is obligated to object to it.
But you should also recognize that, in most cases of this sort, you aren't actually qualified to recognize suspect data. Why do you think you're able to see that this data is suspect when people who have devoted their lives to researching this data do not?
It's not that your point is invalid; one does not need to be a specialized scientist to recognize some flaws. But I think it's actually pretty colossally arrogant to mock people for not thinking rationally and engaging in groupthink when you're not even talented enough in the field to sit at their table.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, it's cute for you to say "Look at all these scientists who agree with me. Surely you cannot stand against this." Do you really need me to go down the list of scientific facts over the last few centuries that ended up being totally off base? I don't know about you, but if I learned anything in college I learned to draw my own conclusions.
Teehee. Is this a good example of what Storm talked about rejecting evidence that disagrees with what you believe and holding to evidence that supports it? It just sounds like something a Mormon might say in the face of someone telling me there is no archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historacity.
*Everyone* does this to some extent, though certainly some do it more than others, because we all have beliefs that we hold to on faith and are very uncomfortable when there is evidence against it. These beliefs don't have to have anything to do with religion.
I see nothing wrong with saying, "I understand that you've got good evidence on your side. But I remain unconvinced for reasons I cannot at this time articulate." But I don't like trying to dismiss the other person's evidence just because they don't like it. I saw a lot of this happening when I brought up some interesting divorce statistics not long ago.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not mocking anyone. And my not being an expert in climatology has nothing to do with my talent. It's pompous of you to even suggest that. I don't claim to know where Rabbit or anyone else gets their conclusions about global warming from. Except when he objected to my statements earlier, he said
quote:Could you also give me some reasons why I should accept the results of your research rather than the majority of results which have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
(Bolding mine)
Excuse me from not pledging allegiance to the majority, but I learned a long time ago that no matter how many people hitch their wagons to an opinion it doesn't make it any less or more right.
It's not true because the majority of scientists agree on it. It's true because it's never been proven false. Scientific method 101.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just checking in to see why this thread is still popping up.
I'm not following the logic that you become a criminal 10 years after you become a young man. I think criminality starts up with the hormones of youth, and would peter out as the prefrontal lobes complete formation around 25.
The theory is also that more children were conceived due to the sexual revolution.
I don't see how anyone can refute that abortion is a form of social darwinism, even if it wasn't meant to be, (eh, my statistics are remembered incorrectly) Even slogans from the left about how conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth (as far as the government's responsibility to support said children) underscores the fiscal considerations of the "lives" of the unborn.
posted
EJdS, it's fine that you don't agree with Rabbit. We'd love to hear your reasons when you are good and prepared. And if that never happens, that's OK too. But your comments to Rabbit seemed inappropriately dismissive and emotionally weighted.
(Edit: Nevermind--I misunderstood what you said.)
Someone can support their point very well and still be wrong, true. But it isn't polite (IMO) to call them wrong just because we think they are. It is more appropriate to say we disagree and if we can, provide reasons and evidence for why.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't calling her wrong. What I said was that just because an article appears in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it's irrefutable. I think you're being oversensitive. I was dismissive though, because it seemed to me like she was trying to browbeat me into submission with the weight of his experts.
I have a good idea where she stands, and the evidence is pretty strong. My only notion was this: experts can be wrong, too. I try to consider both sides before making my decision. And I encourage this in everyone else as well. I don't think, in this case, there is a clearly defined "right" and "wrong".
So, to answer your last paragraph, I agree that it's not polite to call someone wrong for disagreeing with us. I think it's pretty clear that I disagree with conventional wisdom on this issue, and I'll be happy to provide my reasoning when I have a chance.
(I know that I said I'd do it after work, but Rita has turned towards Lafayette, so I may board my windows and all that stuff before I get into this.)
EDIT: For gender clarification.
[ September 22, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Physicians for reproductive choice and health Okay, what I'm trying to say is that of the 1.28 million (not 1.8, sorry) only 7% of abortions were for the reasons covered by insurance: Rape/Incest (1%) Health concerns of mother (3%) and possible deformity of fetus (3%). The remaining primary reasons in order were: Inadequate Finances 21% Not ready for responsibility 21% Womans live would be changed too much 16% Problems with relationship/unmarried 12% Too young, not mature enough 11% Children grown, woman has enough 8% Other 4%
Interestingly, 93% of women had more than one reason, the average number of multiple reasons being 3.7. I guess the 93% stuck in my mind because if you are in the 7% that have a medical reason, you are unlikely to have a multiple reason.
My question would be if the 11% not old/mature enough includes teens, since many minor pregnancies are going to result by definition from rape/incest.
The report put the number of 15,000 on pregnancies from rape and incest but did not put such a number on feti aborted after 20 weeks- which would be double that, or 30,000.
The group is dedicated to keeping awareness of what used to go on before the legalization of abortion and reducing stigma, but we have in exchange for that what goes on with it being the most commonly performed medical procedure.
So I would reframe my statement to say that 93% of abortions were justified by a combination of reasons, the leading reason being inadequate finances.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(I know that I said I'd do it after work, but Rita has turned towards Lafayette, so I may board my windows and all that stuff before I get into this.)
posted
Can't comment on most of the ongoing arguments here -- and I ain't going near the casual dismissal of Mormons except for the "good ones" -- but this thread did accomplish one thing.
I am now reading Freakonomics.
Two rebuttals I'll offer now:
If the hypothesis that criminals are more likely to be aborted is correct, then we should find an unusually high of adopted individuals among the criminals in the 70s and 80s. I haven't done the stats, but my like experience suggests that this is very unlikely to be true.
This would be true only if a disposition for criminal activity was purely genetic. If criminal behavior is a learned activity (or even a little of both, as I tend to think) then adoptees would have the same average as any other group. Maybe even a lower one, as adopted parents clearly wanted their children and may, as a group, offer a more loving home.
I suspect the reduction in crime was from a variety of reasons and that removal of babies -- whether by abortion or adoption -- from homes where they likely would not have been raised as productive individuals was a large and heretofore unrecognized factor.
And I don't think OSC believes that most abortions are directly due to poor impulse control. Rather I believe he places the blame on the poor impulse control that led to the situation now requiring abortion. By the time that abortion becomes a decision it may very well be the most sensible answer, but the decisions that led to that point are a different matter entirely. In the list of reasons prevented above, all of the non-insured reasons are things that perhaps should have been considered before the sex part.
That they weren't, or that not enough emphasis was given on them, is what I believe OSC bemoans as poor impulse control.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freakonomics recently arrived on our doorstep. Neither one of us has started reading, though. Yet.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
And I haven't forgotten that I owe The Rabbit and others a Global Warming thread. I just felt that with the current climate here (excuse the pun), I would hold off a while.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like much of what OSC had to say, particularly about the importance of knowing the facts, and the unfortunate frequency of misinformation about politics. I also intend to get the book. However, I see 3 main problems with the essay.
1) The discussion centers on why crime fell in the 1990's, rather than "continu[ing] to rise in the radical way it had in the 1970's and 1980's." But the data I find on the Department of Justice web page indicates that there was no such crime increase in the 70's and 80's. Here are their graphs on rates of violent crime and property crime: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm
They show property crime steadily decreasing since 1973, and violent crime holding about steady from '73 to '93.
2) OSC says that no one has proved that there is any harm to sexual repression. This ignores the possibility that sex might be good. In fact, this is the entire issue between the "old morality" that OSC champions and the "new morality".
3) OSC suggests that there are only three alternatives available: (a) we can continue to have large numbers of abortions, (b) we can have a higher crime rate, or (c) we can return to 1950's morality (basically, stop having sex). There might be other alternatives, for instance (d) more consistent and effective contraception to prevent pregnancy, and (e) other methods to prevent crime besides pre-emptive abortion. (c), incidentally, is pretty clearly impossible.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the emphasis was on the rise of juvenile crime rates, not crime rates overall.
And don't assume that 1950's morality, assuming we could get a consensus on what that means, is gone forever. There have been more permissive societies than ours in history.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really didn't want to get into this, but I get tired of all the global warming wolf crying.
And I haven't forgotten that I owe The Rabbit and others a Global Warming thread. I just felt that with the current climate here (excuse the pun), I would hold off a while.
You'll have to let me know when you do that. You this upcoming year might be the first time the Arctic Ocean was ice free in several hundred thousand years (or maybe it was just tens of thousands, either way a long time). I'm curious, and want to hear why the ice decided to commit suicide, since there's apparently no extra heat there to melt it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about the thread necromancy, but I was reading this thread before I got my non-work Internet connection, and found it quite interesting. But then it disappeared before I could weigh in. So - arise from the grave!
Anyway, the point I wanted to make : Let's assume the abortion-reduces-crime theory is absolutely correct, and that the amount of abortions in the US amounts to a eugenics program. Why should this make a difference?
Let's assume you believe abortion is murder. Then being a eugenics program doesn't really make a difference - murder is murder, right? Conversely, let's assume abortion is not murder. In that case, why should eugenics be a problem? The reason it's considered a bad thing is that there is usually no way to implement it without seriously infringing on someone's civil rights. But if we have defined fetuses as non-human, which I think necessary for abortion not to be murder, then no human's rights are being violated. So where's the problem?
It's worth noting that depsite its bad rap, eugenics is practiced every day, by people who decide not to marry stupid, brutal, or ugly partners. I don't see anybody objecting to this, although it certainly improves the human race - which is just what eugenics means.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it isn't, at least not according to the majority of people discussing eugenics.
Talk to sndrake, he might be able to describe the difference to you if you can't figure it out for yourself.
Most people using the world associate it with the forced breeding plans, and forced sterilization of masses of humanity, based on racist philosophies. The very theories that it is based on have been completely refuted, as have the practices and methods used to acquire the "data" that justified their actions.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I disagree. The theory that crime, for example, is purely genetic and that the lower classes are lower because they have bad genes, yes, those have been refuted. The theory that you can breed for a desired trait, well, that's pure Darwin. Hitler applied bad theories in a stupid way - if anything, the Holocaust was negative eugenics - but that doesn't mean that what he was trying to do is impossible. He just had really bad aim.
You should note that I am not suggesting we begin sterilising the handicapped again. The badness of the means, not to mention the same problem of bad targeting, would far outweigh any good effect. But if you can get a eugenic effect without hurting anyone, then I don't see the objection.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
