Abortion decreases crime rates

[max is gr8]

Actually, if you go and killed 100,000 people the crime rate would drop. Criminality isn't genetic. If you kill people then there are more resources left for the rest who then don't have to engage in criminal activities.

The crime rate doesn't drop simply because there are less people, it drops because of teh consequence of having less people.

Actually, if you killed 100,000 people (I'm guessing non-criminals here) the crime rate would increase as crime rate is measured per 10,000 or 100,000 people (depending on where abouts in the world)

For example:

1,000,000 People
10,000 Criminals each committing 10 crimes a year on average

Currently that's 100,000 over 1,000,000 so that's 1,000 crimes per 10,000 people
If you kill 100,000 people that would make about 1,111 crimes per 10,000 people.

Besides this is practically a proxy way of eugenics.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe this is the problem...

I'm under the impression that the crime rate is the amount of crimes that take place as a percentage of the number of people in a particular area. Is this correct?

Actually, if you go and killed 100,000 people the crime rate would drop. Criminality isn't genetic. If you kill people then there are more resources left for the rest who then don't have to engage in criminal activities.

Oh, I see what you're saying. If I killed 100,000 people crime would drop because people wouldn't have to "resort to a life of crime" because there would be enough resources to go around. So, crime is related mostly to how much resources there are?

What if I killed 100,000 people in the lowest crime state in the US? Crime rate would go up. What if I killed everyone in Camden, New Jersey? Crime rate would go down.

[Snorri1234]

Maybe this is the problem...

I'm under the impression that the crime rate is the amount of crimes that take place as a percentage of the number of people in a particular area. Is this correct?

Well yes that was what I was using. (My argument might not work for all crimes, and probably doesn't affect murderrates as much as cartheft or stuff)

Actually, if you go and killed 100,000 people the crime rate would drop. Criminality isn't genetic. If you kill people then there are more resources left for the rest who then don't have to engage in criminal activities.

Oh, I see what you're saying. If I killed 100,000 people crime would drop because people wouldn't have to "resort to a life of crime" because there would be enough resources to go around. So, crime is related mostly to how much resources there are?

What if I killed 100,000 people in the lowest crime state in the US? Crime rate would go up. What if I killed everyone in Camden, New Jersey? Crime rate would go down.

Yes it does relate to how much resources there are. And that naturally depends on the location, there is just less room in cities than there is in small towns. So if you killed half the population of New Jersey the crime rate would go down far more than if you killed half the population in Smalltown, Michigan.

If people in the city had the same amount fo acces to resources as those in small towns then there would be little difference, but they don't.

[thegreekdog]

Interesting. I've never looked at crime that way. I think criminal activity, by and large, has more to do with environmental settings (related to, in order, parents', siblings', and friends' activities) and moral compass than any sort of resource basis.

For example, I didn't drink when it was illegal for me to do so because of some lack of resources. Perhaps there is some criminal activity related to the "stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family" scenario, but I don't think that's the answer.

[Snorri1234]

Interesting. I've never looked at crime that way. I think criminal activity, by and large, has more to do with environmental settings (related to, in order, parents', siblings', and friends' activities) and moral compass than any sort of resource basis.

For example, I didn't drink when it was illegal for me to do so because of some lack of resources. Perhaps there is some criminal activity related to the "stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family" scenario, but I don't think that's the answer.

Oh I want to include environmental factors in "resources" too in the sense of poorer families. (Like, a single mother raising 3 kids doesn't have much time to raise the kids because she has to work really hard to feed them. Thus kids go out on the street and so on) I wouldn't include moral compass though since that is shaped by your environment, rather than the other way around.

By "resources" I mean a lot of factors. Education, space, housing, clothing, food and all that and how they influence things. It's more of an economic view of things rather than one who looks at how people personally become criminals. Yes, friends and siblings probably play a large role for them personally, but I want to know why it happens so much more in cities.

[72o]

Interesting. I've never looked at crime that way. I think criminal activity, by and large, has more to do with environmental settings (related to, in order, parents', siblings', and friends' activities) and moral compass than any sort of resource basis.

For example, I didn't drink when it was illegal for me to do so because of some lack of resources. Perhaps there is some criminal activity related to the "stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family" scenario, but I don't think that's the answer.

Exactly. Drug dealers don't deal drugs because there's less resources around. They deal drugs because there's more drug addicts around. Drug addicts don't do drugs because there's less resources around. They do drugs because all their addict friends and family do drugs. Stupid people don't pull drive-bys and shit because they're trying to feed their family, they're just stupid.

EDIT: fastposted: "I want to know why it happens so much more in cities" for your answer, see my explanation above.

[Snorri1234]

Interesting. I've never looked at crime that way. I think criminal activity, by and large, has more to do with environmental settings (related to, in order, parents', siblings', and friends' activities) and moral compass than any sort of resource basis.

For example, I didn't drink when it was illegal for me to do so because of some lack of resources. Perhaps there is some criminal activity related to the "stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family" scenario, but I don't think that's the answer.

Exactly. Drug dealers don't deal drugs because there's less resources around. They deal drugs because there's more drug addicts around. Drug addicts don't do drugs because there's less resources around. They do drugs because all their addict friends and family do drugs. Stupid people don't pull drive-bys and shit because they're trying to feed their family, they're just stupid.

EDIT: fastposted: "I want to know why it happens so much more in cities" for your answer, see my explanation above.

That seems like the worst explanation ever. Why would people ever start doing drugs if it was family and friends instead of pisspoor environments and trying to get away from it all?

Besides, drugusers don't do drugs because friends do them. They do drugs and then make friends with others who do drugs. I've seen that alienation, they go further and further away from their families and friends.
Shit, having family who do drugs is probably one of those things that make people less likely to do drugs, not more.


Drugdealers deal drugs because it's easier and seems like a better financial reward than getting a real job. If you see a drug-boss ride around in a fuckign Benz wearing furcoats and you are offered the choice between flipping burgers and dealing drugs, you are going for the dealing. You aren't being offered the choice between becoming a doctor and dealing drugs.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... I smoked pot because one of my friends smoked pot. One of my friends smoked pot because he was a drug dealer. He was a drug dealer because he made more money dealing drugs than he did working at the local supermarket.

[Snorri1234]

We're not talking about underage drinking or smoking pot, we're talking about crime. You think you would start smoking crack if you had a friend who smoked crack?

Edit: Or started robbing old people because your friends were robbing old people?

[natty dread]

Drugdealers deal drugs because it's easier and seems like a better financial reward than getting a real job. If you see a drug-boss ride around in a fuckign Benz wearing furcoats and you are offered the choice between flipping burgers and dealing drugs, you are going for the dealing. You aren't being offered the choice between becoming a doctor and dealing drugs.

Actually, most drug dealers (except the ones very high up) are drug addicts themselves and deal drugs to finance their own drug habit.

Realistically, nobody just decides "I wanna be a drug dealer when I grow up!"

[thegreekdog]

We're not talking about underage drinking or smoking pot, we're talking about crime. You think you would start smoking crack if you had a friend who smoked crack?

Edit: Or started robbing old people because your friends were robbing old people?

YES! Absolutely yes!

You think people are in gangs because "they lack resources" and not because all their friends are in gangs? You think people are in the Italian mafia because, well, we don't have enough food? Do you really, really think that?

[thegreekdog]

Drugdealers deal drugs because it's easier and seems like a better financial reward than getting a real job. If you see a drug-boss ride around in a fuckign Benz wearing furcoats and you are offered the choice between flipping burgers and dealing drugs, you are going for the dealing. You aren't being offered the choice between becoming a doctor and dealing drugs.

Actually, most drug dealers (except the ones very high up) are drug addicts themselves and deal drugs to finance their own drug habit.

Realistically, nobody just decides "I wanna be a drug dealer when I grow up!"

YES THEY DO! I have known three drug dealers in my life; none of them used anything harder than weed and all of them did it because they wanted to make more money than they could make keeping a real job.

I think you guys watch too many movies.

[pimpdave]

thegreekdog is right. It fundamentally boils down to greed.

The "society made me what I am" thing is just an easy excuse. It might be a contributing factor, but is never the most dominant.

[natty dread]

YES THEY DO! I have known three drug dealers in my life;

Ooo. Three?

Then I must be wrong, seeing as I've only known dozens of them. Not a single one did it without having some kind of drug problem themselves.

The "society made me what I am" thing is just an easy excuse. It might be a contributing factor, but is never the most dominant.

What has that got to do with this? Sure, many addicts blame the society, their parents, the economy, anything but themselves for their addictions. That still doesn't make the fact that most street level drug dealers deal drugs to finance their own habit untrue.

The guys higher up who do the big business are usually members of organized crime. It's like a huge pyramid scheme. The higher up guys use the addicts as their street-level dealers, who do it because it's better than having to do other crimes to finance their addictions.

[hecter]

You really do watch too many movies...

[thegreekdog]

Ooo. Three?

Then I must be wrong, seeing as I've only known dozens of them. Not a single one did it without having some kind of drug problem themselves.

And they were drug dealers because they used drugs. And they used drugs because of a lack of resources? Where ya going with this Scorpio?

[natty dread]

Ooo. Three?

Then I must be wrong, seeing as I've only known dozens of them. Not a single one did it without having some kind of drug problem themselves.

And they were drug dealers because they used drugs. And they used drugs because of a lack of resources? Where ya going with this Scorpio?

Who said they used drugs because of lack of resources?

There are various reasons for drug addiction problems, but I don't think this thread is about that. Let's just say shortly, that drug business exists because there is a market, a demand, for drugs. One can't just bundle all drugs together to find an universal reason for all drug use. There are lots of different types of drugs, which are used for various reasons. Some more socially accepted than others.

[thegreekdog]

Ooo. Three?

Then I must be wrong, seeing as I've only known dozens of them. Not a single one did it without having some kind of drug problem themselves.

And they were drug dealers because they used drugs. And they used drugs because of a lack of resources? Where ya going with this Scorpio?

Who said they used drugs because of lack of resources?

There are various reasons for drug addiction problems, but I don't think this thread is about that. Let's just say shortly, that drug business exists because there is a market, a demand, for drugs. One can't just bundle all drugs together to find an universal reason for all drug use. There are lots of different types of drugs, which are used for various reasons. Some more socially accepted than others.

"A Brief History of This Thread"

By T. Greek Dog

This thread was originally about whether the legalization of abortion resulted in a drop in the crime rate. Subsequent to the OP, yours truly posited that because abortion may have been a crime, the legalization of abortion led to a drop in the crime rate. Yours truly also posited that a drop in population has virtually no correlation to a drop in the crime rate unless people having abortions were the "right" kind of people. Someone (Snorri?) indicated that less population means less competition for resources means less crime. Yours truly disagreed and gave the drug dealer example, positing that criminals are criminals because they would rather do that than work at a supermarket (or whatever). Mr. natty_dread (a/k/a Mr. Scorpio) indicated that people dealt drugs because they had to pay for their habit.

[natty dread]

Yours truly disagreed and gave the drug dealer example, positing that criminals are criminals because they would rather do that than work at a supermarket (or whatever). Mr. natty_dread (a/k/a Mr. Scorpio) indicated that people dealt drugs because they had to pay for their habit.

My point being, you can't just bundle criminals or drug dealers or drug addicts in to one group and try to find some kind of universal reason which makes them criminals, drug dealers or drug addicts.

There are various reasons, depending on circumstances.

Sure, some are criminals because they'd rather do that than work at some supermarket with lousy pay.

And some are just bored kids who do it for kicks.

Some do crime because of socio-economic reasons: lack of education, living conditions, poverty, etc. This does not justificate crime, but explains some of the reasons why people turn criminals.

Abortions won't decrease crime per se. Making abortions a viable alternative to giving birth to unwanted babies in poor conditions might decrease crime somewhat, but a much better solution would be to improve the living conditions of the people who are likely to become criminals or drug addicts. When people have less reasons to commit crimes, there will be less crimes.

[Titanic]

This thread is a truly fascinating read about peoples perceptions of crime, criminals and society. You should invite a philosophy student to do their thesis on this topic.

To the OP, I believe the stats on that if the ones who are having the abortions are a greater proportion of those who will grow up statistically to become criminals due to their environment. If the abortions are spread out throughout society then the crime rate will remain steady, but if what I said is true then it will drop.

For the drug dealing and crime view that it is influenced by the amount of resources available, I have never heard this arguament before but it is definitely interesting. Maybe for the most downtrodden of society who have to steal food and drink to survive on a daily basis, yes, but they constitute a tiny percentage of the population. The majority of crime (non violent) actually occurs due to drug dealers and addicts trying to fund their addictions and I don't see how this fits into the arguament. The majority of druggies live in poorer parts where there are not as many resources to actually fund their habit, the "resources" to fund them are generally in the richer parts of town.

[jay_a2j]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

[Titanic]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

Is anyone actually taking a stance here?

[jay_a2j]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

Is anyone actually taking a stance here?

Implying that abortion is a GOOD thing because it "decreases" the crime rate is a stance.


I don't care if abortion made the crime rate fall to ZERO (which if all babies were aborted it would drop to zero because the human race would die out) , it's still wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

Is anyone actually taking a stance here?

Implying that abortion is a GOOD thing because it "decreases" the crime rate is a stance.


I don't care if abortion made the crime rate fall to ZERO (which if all babies were aborted it would drop to zero because the human race would die out) , it's still wrong.

If that were true, do you believe that the end justifies the means?

[natty dread]

How is abortion wrong?

If a woman gets raped and gets pregnant as a result, she shouldn't have the right to terminate the pregnancy?

A fetus less than 10 weeks old is not a sentient being. It's not a "murder" to abort it.