Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Other things can cause an environment that is not nurturing. One of them is if your parents are poor. So by this logic, abortion should only be illegal for rich people. The fact is, as soon as you allow for environmental factors such as this, you have to also include in your thinking the fact that a child that is unwanted will also be raised in an environment that is not nurturing.
|
Have you ever read the book Freakanomics? Its written by an econonomist name Stephen Levit (sp?) who explores through heaps of data trying to explain things that don't have obvious answers.
In one chapter, he tries to explain the stark drop in crime in the 1990s in the US, which was the exact opposite of what all experts had predicted. He came to the conclusion the aborition being legalized in the 1970s is what had caused it. Why? Because the people that were comitting the crime were usually the poor, neglected children whose mothers did want them in the first place. Starting in the 1970s, a large portion of these babies were eliminated from the population pool and, consequently, less crime was being committed when these babies would have been coming into their peak crime committing years (late teens, early twenties). He backs up his assertion with a lot of statistical and mathematical data.
He certainly doesn't present his arguments in a pro-choice sort of view, as it may seem from my short summary above; rather just links cause and effect, stating explicitly that he's not trying to argue one way other. He in fact, makes arguments both for an against abortion. Needless to say, when he first published his conclusions it caused a lot of controversy (on both ends of the political spectrum), but it certainly makes for an interesting read.