> > > Kinda like losing various geniuses and other "luminaries" > through > > > the 40 million+ abortions performed in the USA since Roe v. > Wade...
1. Studies have shown that women who have abortions early in life go on to have the same number of children they would have had anyway, but only at the time they want them. Roe v Wade did not significantly reduce pop. growth rate in the US. Affluence seems to be the major correlate with fewer number of children in a family, so according to the above logic we should keep the population poor so that they have larger families so that we have more luminaries. 2. The crime rate-abortion studies are not in any way a policy prescription for dealing with crime. It simply shows the relationship between the two and is useful in refuting other theories about why the crime rate suddenly dropped significantly in the US in the 90s, theories that may sound logical but have no basis in the statistics. 3. The crime rate-abortion studies are not nazi or racial in nature, they are sociological. We already knew that unwanted children growing up in a poor, single family environment were more likely to commit crime, esp males starting around 17-18 yrs old. Prior to RvW, there were plenty of abortions in the US, only it was difficult for poor, young, single women to afford them. About 17-18 yrs after RvW the crime rate starts to drop signficantly and continues for several yrs. 5 states that had legal abortion earlier see the dramatic drop in crime rate earlier. It's not that there are fewer numbers of a certain racial type, it's that there are fewer unwanted babies being born to a certain sociological group -- poor, young, single women. 4. Which brings us to the TMO's Washington, DC Crime Rate study, which they say proves that the DC course in 93 significantly reduced crime. I've only been able to find a summary of the study which states that they compared the crime rate during the course to the same time period for the previous 5 yrs and found a reduction. What's strange is that they admit that the crime rate continued to drop in DC even after the course ended. Normally that's a reason to conclude that something else, not the course, was the source of the crime reduction, but the study spins it to say that just proves how powerful the M-effect really is. Of course we know now that crime rate was starting to fall everywhere in the country, esp cities, in 93. If you compared crime in the summer of 93 to an avg of the prior 5 yrs in most every other US city, you would come up with similar statistics that they came up with in DC. This is why good studies use good controls. And crime rate did continue to drop in DC and most all cities for the next several yrs, which further disputes the study's conclusions. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
