Abortion and Crime

It is true that many of the topics examined in Freakonomics can be considered controversial. One topic indirectly addressed in this book is that of abortion. Ever since Roe v. Wade (by the way I never knew the whole back story) this topic has divided the nation. Pro-choice and right-to-life activists have generally based their positions on the rights of the mother and religious/moral grounds respectively. This topic continues to be controversial because there are so many people who feel very strongly about both sides of this issue.

The reasoning behind why the author addressed such a controversial issue probably was not intentional. While Steven Levitt was researching potential causes for a reduction in crime one of the many things he looked for were any changes in demographics. The author probably did not expect to stumble upon this “unforeseen and long-gestating” demographic change. While I have read or heard about the connection of abortion and economic level (many abortions are performed on mothers who live in poverty) and there have been plenty of studies on the connection of economic level and crime (more perpetrators of crime live in poverty), I have never read or heard anything about the link between abortion and crime. But, if there is a link between a and b and b and c, it would make sense that there is a link between a and c .Even before Levitt raised the issue of abortion in Freakonomics, Anthony V. Bouza had said, “…arguably the only effective crime-prevention device adopted in this nation since the late 1960s.” Even though others have made the connection perhaps Levitt was the first to explain his theory. When most people look at causes or contributing factors, they often look at more immediate or direct links. This link takes almost twenty years to realize (“Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes”) and there are still so many other contributing factors.

Even if others came to the same conclusion, voicing this theory would probably not be socially accepted. During protests it would be unlikely that a sign would read “Reduce Crime, Have an Abortion”. Nor would you be likely to read “Choose Life, Police Need Job Security”. I wonder if that cause-effect relationship was found to be 100% accurate if it would help some women to justify their actions This topic continues to be a highly controversial issue on many different levels.

Another factor to consider from a purely economic point of view in this controversy is funding. Given the premise that most fetuses aborted would have been born into poverty consider this calculation. If the government spends x amount of money to support the average person living in poverty on welfare and it costs x amount of money to capture, prosecute, and punish the average criminal, then will the government eventually find it cost efficient to subsidize or help fund some of these abortions? If this theory is accurate should the government provide free birth control to poverty-ridden areas?

Considering the root of the controversy one could question why Levitt decided to include this theory in his book. After reading Freakonomics I don’t really think he is afraid of controversy. He seems to think outside the box and if he uncovers information that is controversial but relevant I don’t think he shies away from it. I actually think he might like stirring up a little controversy to get people thinking of things other than the obvious. When he comes to conclusions or develops a theory I don’t think he really encourages action one way or the other (after all he is an economist not an activist). Levitt just presents his theory, along with others, and lets the reader make his own assessment. When he determines causality he doesn’t make any recommendations he just presents data. According to Levitt, while the relationship between legalized abortion and the crime rate has not gained the greatest traction in the popular/political discussions (real estate has), it certainly has opened up dialogue. Whether it is correlation or a cause I don’t think his theory of abortion and crime will ever become part of “conventional wisdom” (unless of course it is declared illegal again) but I do think it will add another dimension to the longstanding controversy.