Discussion I think the days of the United States being one country are numbered..

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,099
12,789
136
Crime started dropping after 18 years everywhere they stopped burning lead in gasoline. County, city, state, country. Across the world. Had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Actually it’s possible you are both right.

I will add though that pre 1900’s abortions were largely allowed however post 1900 most states prohibited abortions.

If abortions reduced crime we should see an uptick in crime starting in the ~19teens with an increase in crime as laws became stricter.

If lead was the cause in crime we should see an increase in crime some 15-20 years after its adoption (around 1922).

I don’t know if crime stats go that far but it would be interesting to see a correlation if any.

I should also add that since financial capability is a major factor in one deciding to have an abortion, we should see an increase in crime some 15-20 years after 1928 and a decrease in crime some 15-20 years after wwII when soldiers came back from the war.

Because lead was used during that whole time period we would expect not to see any drops in crime and an increase in crime when car usage increased (so most likely an increase in crime 15-20 years after wwii).
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
Actually it’s possible you are both right.

I will add though that pre 1900’s abortions were largely allowed however post 1900 most states prohibited abortions.

If abortions reduced crime we should see an uptick in crime starting in the ~19teens with an increase in crime as laws became stricter.

If lead was the cause in crime we should see an increase in crime some 15-20 years after its adoption (around 1922).

I don’t know if crime stats go that far but it would be interesting to see a correlation if any.
Here ya go. Please, take your time running through the data. Drum boils it down, but provides plenty of links if you're interested in the raw data and studies.


It's pretty clear.

Do you think it's a good idea to drink water from lead pipes?

Now just think about how almost every country in the world decided around 1935 to start burning lead in gasoline. And then think about the proliferation of cars from 1935 until now. And where cars drive. And where there are more cars vs. less cars.

How much lead do you think we should breathe in on a daily basis. Children being born in the 80s and 90s all of a sudden had a massive drop in blood lead levels because we quit burning lead in gasoline...here in the US.

Now compare that to other countries that stopped burning lead earlier and later. 15-20 years after we stop burning lead and dumping it into the air for children to breathe in, all of a sudden 18 year old children stop committing nearly as much crime as their parents and their parents.

Has little-to-nothing to do with aborting fetuses, unless you wanted to make the argument that pregnant children with less lead in their bloodstream make decisions to have more abortions because they have more impulse control, but I digress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
33,104
23,301
136
Here ya go. Please, take your time running through the data. Drum boils it down, but provides plenty of links if you're interested in the raw data and studies.


It's pretty clear.

Do you think it's a good idea to drink water from lead pipes?

Now just think about how almost every country in the world decided around 1935 to start burning lead in gasoline. And then think about the proliferation of cars from 1935 until now. And where cars drive. And where there are more cars vs. less cars.

How much lead do you think we should breathe in on a daily basis. Children being born in the 80s and 90s all of a sudden had a massive drop in blood lead levels because we quit burning lead in gasoline...here in the US.

Now compare that to other countries that stopped burning lead earlier and later. 15-20 years after we stop burning lead and dumping it into the air for children to breathe in, all of a sudden 18 year old children stop committing nearly as much crime as their parents and their parents.

Has little-to-nothing to do with aborting fetuses, unless you wanted to make the argument that pregnant children with less lead in their bloodstream make decisions to have more abortions because they have more impulse control, but I digress.
Here:

I'm not saying lead didn't or couldn't have been a factor. Maybe it is for all I know, but at least with abortions it follows logically. Tons more unwanted and unloved children being raised means they don't get the attention and care they need and deserve. The correlation between criminal activity and broken, damaged homelife is undeniable. Self-hate and all that. I'll read your link when I have a bit more time. I'd like to understand what mechanism in lead leads to criminal behavior. I suppose it affects intelligence, but is that enough to lead to crime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
Crime started dropping after 18 years everywhere they stopped burning lead in gasoline. County, city, state, country. Across the world. Had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Yeah, that's long been my favoured explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. But that's entirely down to my anti-car prejudices - I like blaming motorists for everything bad that ever happens. Also the 'Roe vs Wade' explanation, I think, is down to those Freakanomics guys, who I can't stand, and who have a strong tendency to present contentious and questionable theories as if they were established facts (e.g. the 'Broken window' theory).

Be interesting to see if it correlates with the timing of that change in different countries - as lead was removed from petrol at different times in different places, it should surely be possible to see if it statistically fits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
30,031
7,203
136
Yeah, that's long been my favoured explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. But that's entirely down to my anti-car prejudices - I like blaming motorists for everything bad that ever happens. Also the 'Roe vs Wade' explanation, I think, is down to those Freakanomics guys, who I can't stand, and who have a strong tendency to present contentious and questionable theories as if they were established facts (e.g. the 'Broken window' theory).

Be interesting to see if it correlates with the timing of that change in different countries - as lead was removed from petrol at different times in different places, it should surely be possible to see if it statistically fits.
This. Otherwise both things are just potentially spurious correlations.
Don't get me wrong though - I agree that it's reasonable for both to contribute to a decrease in crime (via improved health and economics)
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
Yeah, that's long been my favoured explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. But that's entirely down to my anti-car prejudices - I like blaming motorists for everything bad that ever happens. Also the 'Roe vs Wade' explanation, I think, is down to those Freakanomics guys, who I can't stand, and who have a strong tendency to present contentious and questionable theories as if they were established facts (e.g. the 'Broken window' theory).

Be interesting to see if it correlates with the timing of that change in different countries - as lead was removed from petrol at different times in different places, it should surely be possible to see if it statistically fits.
Well, the lead hypothesis does apply to different countries, which the 1973 Roe vs. Wade does not.

That's why I posted what I posted.

Click on my link. Take a few minutes and read the analysis and follow all the links to the actual studies.

Here's the link again.

 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
Well, the lead hypothesis does apply to different countries, which the 1973 Roe vs. Wade does not.

That's why I posted what I posted.

Click on my link. Take a few minutes and read the analysis and follow all the links to the actual studies.

Here's the link again.

That's interesting, I will try and read it.

Though there's one reason why I've always been reluctant to look into that evidence properly. Growing up in an inner city area, indeed living directly over a very busy road throughout my childhood - at a time when I've read that average lead levels in children's blood was far higher than are now considered safe - I get a bit stressed at the thought that maybe I'd now be a lot smarter than I am if not for the motorists' desire for cheaper engine maintenance.

I also heard somewhere that a lot of that lead gets locked into your bones and then starts to leak out again in your old age, thus poisoning you all over again.

Partly I really don't want to know the answer, as there's nothing I can do about it.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
That's interesting, I will try and read it.

Though there's one reason why I've always been reluctant to look into that evidence properly. Growing up in an inner city area, indeed living directly over a very busy road throughout my childhood - at a time when I've read that average lead levels in children's blood was far higher than are now considered safe - I get a bit stressed at the thought that maybe I'd now be a lot smarter than I am if not for the motorists' desire for cheaper engine maintenance.

I also heard somewhere that a lot of that lead gets locked into your bones and then starts to leak out again in your old age, thus poisoning you all over again.

Partly I really don't want to know the answer, as there's nothing I can do about it.
Just another hilariously tragic incident in which humans cause their own suffering because money is more important than anything else. Followed by the same humans enacting "tough on crime" penalties to punish, typically, the people with the least money who've been poisoned by people with the most money. Followed by shitlibs who work to make society better by, you know, stopping the mass poisoning of human beings because shitlibs hate America and Jesus and secretly want Stalin's gulags and Soviet-era 5 year plans or whatever.

Greed and letting the literal psychopaths make the laws and public policy is the meta story of almost all human problems. That said, I can be safely ignored because it discomforts the rich and powerful, making it communism.

Don't believe me? Just ask one of the resident conservatives who only know how to make 3 carefully crafted talking point arguments. If we don't give rich people all of the money, they won't give the rest of us jobs. And the only alternative is Soviet-era communism. So, looks like we gotta give all the money to the rich people.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,694
146
Crime started dropping after 18 years everywhere they stopped burning lead in gasoline. County, city, state, country. Across the world. Had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Yeah, I think the link is more then just a guess:


At the bottom of this wikipedia page are 20+ links to some pretty strong evidence showing a direct correlation and causation along different timelines in different countries following the legalization of abortion.

 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
Yeah, I think the link is more then just a guess:


At the bottom of this wikipedia page are 20+ links to some pretty strong evidence showing a direct correlation and causation along different timelines in different countries following the legalization of abortion.

I'm 100% sure that there was a fetus that was aborted that would have committed a crime, because ultimately that is 100% a given, considering every single "crime" is committed by a fetus that wasn't aborted.

With abortion, you have to measure based on various statistics.

With BURNING LEAD, it can actually be measured. As in, measured in blood levels of children, measured by crime rates over time of those children, etc. I mean, you can click on my link to get the analysis and the actual published scientific studies.

Additionally, leaded gasoline and crime can be correlated across the world. The beginning of the crime increase across geographic regions, various spikes and decreases within that increase based on gasoline usage, and the abrupt drop nationwide as leaded gasoline was phased out and then discontinued.

There are various reasons why crime rose and dropped, but I'm going to go ahead and stick with absolutely obvious, "we probably shouldn't fucking burn lead and dump it into the air for everyone to breathe, especially children".

Blood lead levels in children and brain functioning/likelihood to commit crime are hard science. We can measure it. Whether "unwanted" children automatically commit most of the crime in the world isn't hard science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
I'm willing to accept that legalising abortion may have made some contribution to lowering crime rates. It seems perfectly plausible that unwanted children whose parents couldn't afford to look after them properly, would be more likely to end up engaging in criminal activities in adulthood.

But I haven't seen anything about that that involves cross-national comparisons or that can be clearly quantified. The lead-in-petrol hypothesis seems stronger in terms of the number of independent datasets that are consistent with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,882
2,635
136
The ONLY thing that MIGHT bring the country together would be some tragic national disaster. Something really big. You'd think that a worldwide pandemic could do it but obviously not. That only divided us even more....
So what then???? A nuclear attack? One third of the country wiped out and the remainder covered with nuclear waste? A giant meteor? An earthquake where California and or New York fall into the ocean?

Or how about another deadly pandemic? I'm talking something on the scale of the black plague where one third of the European population was wiped out. In this case we would be talking some 110 million American's alone, dead. Would THAT do it? I doubt it.

Oh I know, how about something biblical like a good old fashion biblical rapture? But knowing how sick religion is these days and how the Christians now pray to Trump instead of god, there could be a rapture and no one would know it. No one would be, as it were, "taken-up".

No...
Me thinkest it comes down to a civil war, a very bloody civil war leaving no survivors on the losing side. After all, we have the guns and the hate so lets do it.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,099
12,789
136
I'm willing to accept that legalising abortion may have made some contribution to lowering crime rates. It seems perfectly plausible that unwanted children whose parents couldn't afford to look after them properly, would be more likely to end up engaging in criminal activities in adulthood.

But I haven't seen anything about that that involves cross-national comparisons or that can be clearly quantified. The lead-in-petrol hypothesis seems stronger in terms of the number of independent datasets that are consistent with it.
Abortion rights have changed over the last few decades so you’d probably have to be aware of a particular country and look at iTs data individually as opposed to looking at the world crime rate.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,320
9,962
136
I'm willing to accept that legalising abortion may have made some contribution to lowering crime rates. It seems perfectly plausible that unwanted children whose parents couldn't afford to look after them properly, would be more likely to end up engaging in criminal activities in adulthood.

But I haven't seen anything about that that involves cross-national comparisons or that can be clearly quantified. The lead-in-petrol hypothesis seems stronger in terms of the number of independent datasets that are consistent with it.
I dont see how it cant follow.
Unwanted early parenthood in life necessarily must, on average, have an impact on income and class status, its a verifiable fact that less access to riches -> more crime.
Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
I dont see how it cant follow.
Unwanted early parenthood in life necessarily must, on average, have an impact on income and class status, its a verifiable fact that less access to riches -> more crime.
Right?
Yeah, but the size of the effect is going to depend on the surrounding socio-economic context - what moral taboos there are around abortion, how much support there is for poorer families, etc. I don't see it would necessarily hold equally true across all societies. A medical/biological factor like lead damaging your CNS is likely, it seems to me, to be more independent of that social context. I mean, I don't know really, it's more that I have a pre-existing resentment for having grown up breathing in all that foul crap that car drivers pump into inner-city air.

Incidentally, there seem to be some question marks over the additives that have been employed as a substitute for lead in petrol as an "anti knocking agent" - though what I've seen claimed is that they have a bad effect on amphibians rather than on humans. Plus of course now it's diesel particulates and NOx that are filling up inner city air and harming the health of those who live there.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,320
9,962
136
Yeah, but the size of the effect is going to depend on the surrounding socio-economic context - what moral taboos there are around abortion, how much support there is for poorer families, etc. I don't see it would necessarily hold equally true across all societies. A medical/biological factor like lead damaging your CNS is likely, it seems to me, to be more independent of that social context. I mean, I don't know really, it's more that I have a pre-existing resentment for having grown up breathing in all that foul crap that car drivers pump into inner-city air.

Incidentally, there seem to be some question marks over the additives that have been employed as a substitute for lead in petrol as an "anti knocking agent" - though what I've seen claimed is that they have a bad effect on amphibians rather than on humans. Plus of course now it's diesel particulates and NOx that are filling up inner city air and harming the health of those who live there.
Its the sort of same construct with lead isnt it? Lead hits the development of the frontal lobes. iq, again -> social class of a given level associated with a certain level of crime.
Its the same when the Millers of the world claims that blacks do more crime…. Not within their social class they dont, but that is the whole systemic racism debacle and not op aligned.

“I don't see it would necessarily hold equally true across all societies.”
My logic circuitry says it does. There is only a net negative, cant derive a positive, law of averages demands a negative. sizeof? Not nothing?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
Its the sort of same construct with lead isnt it? Lead hits the development of the frontal lobes. iq, again -> social class of a given level associated with a certain level of crime.
Its the same when the Millers of the world claims that blacks do more crime…. Not within their social class they dont, but that is the whole systemic racism debacle and not op aligned.
Yeah, I guess I'd agree that with lead also, the connection between its negative effects and 'crime' is not going to be direct and one-to-one. Indeed I'm surprised the correlation holds as well as it does - it's arguably _too_ good. But the point is more that lead would be having a bad effect on people's health and life-chances, that's important in itself. The crime 'signal', may well be due to a combination of things, including both past lead-exposure and past non-availability of abortion.
(I also wonder to what degree the nature of crime - i.e. violent or non-violent - is going to be influenced by technology. As street-muggings get supplanted by internet fraud, and vandalism by trolling, for example, violence may decrease, though obesity will increase)

(I'm also not sure that the only effect of lead is on "intelligence", does it not also cause emotional problems? Or is that only with mercury?)

“I don't see it would necessarily hold equally true across all societies.”
My logic circuitry says it does. There is only a net negative, cant derive a positive, law of averages demands a negative. sizeof? Not nothing?
But that's what I mean by 'equally'. The sign, positive-or-negative, might not change, but the magnitude of any effect certainly could.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,211
11,694
146
I'm 100% sure that there was a fetus that was aborted that would have committed a crime, because ultimately that is 100% a given, considering every single "crime" is committed by a fetus that wasn't aborted.

With abortion, you have to measure based on various statistics.

With BURNING LEAD, it can actually be measured. As in, measured in blood levels of children, measured by crime rates over time of those children, etc. I mean, you can click on my link to get the analysis and the actual published scientific studies.

Additionally, leaded gasoline and crime can be correlated across the world. The beginning of the crime increase across geographic regions, various spikes and decreases within that increase based on gasoline usage, and the abrupt drop nationwide as leaded gasoline was phased out and then discontinued.

There are various reasons why crime rose and dropped, but I'm going to go ahead and stick with absolutely obvious, "we probably shouldn't fucking burn lead and dump it into the air for everyone to breathe, especially children".

Blood lead levels in children and brain functioning/likelihood to commit crime are hard science. We can measure it. Whether "unwanted" children automatically commit most of the crime in the world isn't hard science.
Your first sentence is a ridiculous logical fallacy.

Removal of lead in gas at LEAST ten years late.

While unleaded gas was introduced in 1975 the majority of gas sold was leaded all the way up to the mid-late 80s. Were leaded gas the primary cause the drop in crime would not have been noticeable until the mid 2000s with Millennials. But the crime drop STARTED with the generation born in the mid 70s. A generation who grew up in a world still filled with leaded gas during their formative years.

While lead may have played a part, it is ridiculous to discount that less unwanted children does not reduce crime when they grow up. Statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact. So to ignore reducing the numbers of unwanted children as a factor is irrational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
Your first sentence is a ridiculous logical fallacy.
How? He's merely setting out the minimum base-level thesis when it comes to abortion and crime, and conceding that much. Where is the "fallacy", logical or otherwise?


Removal of lead in gas at LEAST ten years late.

While unleaded gas was introduced in 1975 the majority of gas sold was leaded all the way up to the mid-late 80s. Were leaded gas the primary cause the drop in crime would not have been noticeable until the mid 2000s with Millennials. But the crime drop STARTED with the generation born in the mid 70s. A generation who grew up in a world still filled with leaded gas during their formative years.

While lead may have played a part, it is ridiculous to discount that less unwanted children does not reduce crime when they grow up. Statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact. So to ignore reducing the numbers of unwanted children as a factor is irrational.

That's a weak response. How does it relate to the figures given in the linked article, showing a clear correlation between blood lead levels in young children and crime levels a couple of decades later? To me that data looks at least moderately convincing.

(The evidence seems actually stronger than I thought it would be, having not previously looked into it much, due to my previously-mentioned personal emotional reasons - note how high was the average lead level in UK children when I was a child, and those figures are for the country as a whole, not inner cities- where I lived as a child, directly over a major road, the windows would get black with soot from motor pollution).

Conversely there's the paper posted (in error, I assume, I guess was meant to be in this thread) by cytg111 in the anti-vax medical treatment thread, that failed to find any relationship between abortion legalisation and crime falling in the context of the UK, suggesting that the correlation found in the US may have been a spurious one.

 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,424
513
136
While there are quite a few places, especially in local government, where one side of the other wins with a comfortable margin, there is almost no where of any relevance that can be considered even close to single party. Even in liberal strongholds like Los Angeles the Democrats only win elections by 10-20 percent. That still means 30-40% of the population in what might be the most liberal place in the US is conservatives.
Why not look at registered voters instead of election results? LA county has 53% democrat, 17.1% republican, and 24% no party affiliation.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,179
14,118
136
Why not look at registered voters instead of election results? LA county has 53% democrat, 17.1% republican, and 24% no party affiliation.
He was talking about local elections but in national elections the margins are huge. And this discourse is about separating the country so we don't have to suffer under the national authoritarian regressive Christian oligarchical rule the Republicans want to instill on us all.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
Your first sentence is a ridiculous logical fallacy.

Removal of lead in gas at LEAST ten years late.

While unleaded gas was introduced in 1975 the majority of gas sold was leaded all the way up to the mid-late 80s. Were leaded gas the primary cause the drop in crime would not have been noticeable until the mid 2000s with Millennials. But the crime drop STARTED with the generation born in the mid 70s. A generation who grew up in a world still filled with leaded gas during their formative years.

While lead may have played a part, it is ridiculous to discount that less unwanted children does not reduce crime when they grow up. Statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact. So to ignore reducing the numbers of unwanted children as a factor is irrational.
First, my initial sentence is cold hard fact. Every single crime ever committed was committed by a :
1. Human being
2. That wasn't aborted.

Full stop. If you'd like to argue that there have been crimes committed by aborted fetuses, I'd love to hear it. Should be interesting.

Additionally, because there is literally NO MEASURABLE DATA from the absent crime being committed by non-existent people, again, it's all economic variables being measured, rather than actual measurable results, which is how science is typically conducted.

Second, leaded gas began phaseout in the early 1970s, was almost entirely complete by 1980, and the decades-long crime increase began to drop in the late 80s and early 90s. Crime isn't just committed by 18 year olds, and plenty of under-18 children get charged as adults, so just focusing on one year instead of multiple years of a change isn't realistic.

And, by the way, we can even look at geographic maps that show roads and highways where crime was higher than the surrounding areas even in sub-state geographic areas. Same with urban vs. rural areas.

Arguing that abortion caused the drop in crime is based on inferred statistics. Because, again, I don't believe we're able to measure the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses. But more importantly, legalizing abortion in 1973 offers absolutely zero argument for THE INCREASE IN CRIME starting in the late 60s. Meanwhile, leaded gas that had existed since the mid-1920s began getting burned on a societal scale in the mid-to-late 1940s as the US economy skyrocketed during and after WWII.

Was abortion legal up until the mid-to-late 1940s and then curtailed? If not, again, we're stuck inferring data.

Third, just saying "statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact is going to require some statistics, and I look forward to your measured data of the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses.

And finally, let's be real clear. I never said the ONLY reason that the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s decreased was due solely to phasing out leaded gasoline. I'm saying the vast majority of the decrease was due to stopping burning lead...because again it is 100% solid, measurable fact that blood lead levels decrease brain function, executive control, and impulse control, leading to 100% solid measurable crimes committed by those poisoned children. Not to mention, INCLUDED in the lead hypothesis is the actual INCREASE IN CRIME that we're talking about, that cannot be explained by legalizing abortion in 1973.

Like I said in my first sentence, there has for sure been less crimes committed because of aborted fetuses, since every crime ever committed was done by a non-aborted fetus.

Economics is still probably one of the most important drivers of crime, even with lead. I mean, if you already have money and privilege, you're less likely to be in a situation where you need to steal/rob/burgle to stay alive. So, there are obviously other factors.

PS: while "unwanted children" commit crimes, so do "wanted children".

So, why did crime increase from the 1960s to 1990s, when abortion had been almost universally illegal already?

Why were there more "unwanted children" being born starting in the 1940s to the 1970s causing the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s? Remember, it's not just the number of crimes, but the per capita number of crimes, so "more babies" isn't a correct answer.

Again, those two questions have no explanation that can be derived from a future 1973 Supreme Court decision. But guess what, leaded gas can answer why the crime increase itself even happened.

And leaded gas can be used to explain outside-the-US crime increases and subsequent crime decreases (except, in fact, where they still use leaded gasoline).

Look, I'm going to go with lead because lead is measurable, has been measured, and has actual measurable evidence in how it decreases brain function and specifically makes it more likely that someone poisoned by lead as a child will partake in riskier behavior and potentially criminal behavior.

You can ignore that if you want and go with a couple of economists' inferred data, but I'm sticking with the best available hard science. Feel free to read the link I made, I'm not a scientist and it's not "my" argument.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
464
96
First, my initial sentence is cold hard fact. Every single crime ever committed was committed by a :
1. Human being
2. That wasn't aborted.

Full stop. If you'd like to argue that there have been crimes committed by aborted fetuses, I'd love to hear it. Should be interesting.

Additionally, because there is literally NO MEASURABLE DATA from the absent crime being committed by non-existent people, again, it's all economic variables being measured, rather than actual measurable results, which is how science is typically conducted.

Second, leaded gas began phaseout in the early 1970s, was almost entirely complete by 1980, and the decades-long crime increase began to drop in the late 80s and early 90s. Crime isn't just committed by 18 year olds, and plenty of under-18 children get charged as adults, so just focusing on one year instead of multiple years of a change isn't realistic.

And, by the way, we can even look at geographic maps that show roads and highways where crime was higher than the surrounding areas even in sub-state geographic areas. Same with urban vs. rural areas.

Arguing that abortion caused the drop in crime is based on inferred statistics. Because, again, I don't believe we're able to measure the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses. But more importantly, legalizing abortion in 1973 offers absolutely zero argument for THE INCREASE IN CRIME starting in the late 60s. Meanwhile, leaded gas that had existed since the mid-1920s began getting burned on a societal scale in the mid-to-late 1940s as the US economy skyrocketed during and after WWII.

Was abortion legal up until the mid-to-late 1940s and then curtailed? If not, again, we're stuck inferring data.

Third, just saying "statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact is going to require some statistics, and I look forward to your measured data of the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses.

And finally, let's be real clear. I never said the ONLY reason that the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s decreased was due solely to phasing out leaded gasoline. I'm saying the vast majority of the decrease was due to stopping burning lead...because again it is 100% solid, measurable fact that blood lead levels decrease brain function, executive control, and impulse control, leading to 100% solid measurable crimes committed by those poisoned children. Not to mention, INCLUDED in the lead hypothesis is the actual INCREASE IN CRIME that we're talking about, that cannot be explained by legalizing abortion in 1973.

Like I said in my first sentence, there has for sure been less crimes committed because of aborted fetuses, since every crime ever committed was done by a non-aborted fetus.

Economics is still probably one of the most important drivers of crime, even with lead. I mean, if you already have money and privilege, you're less likely to be in a situation where you need to steal/rob/burgle to stay alive. So, there are obviously other factors.

PS: while "unwanted children" commit crimes, so do "wanted children".

So, why did crime increase from the 1960s to 1990s, when abortion had been almost universally illegal already?

Why were there more "unwanted children" being born starting in the 1940s to the 1970s causing the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s? Remember, it's not just the number of crimes, but the per capita number of crimes, so "more babies" isn't a correct answer.

Again, those two questions have no explanation that can be derived from a future 1973 Supreme Court decision. But guess what, leaded gas can answer why the crime increase itself even happened.

And leaded gas can be used to explain outside-the-US crime increases and subsequent crime decreases (except, in fact, where they still use leaded gasoline).

Look, I'm going to go with lead because lead is measurable, has been measured, and has actual measurable evidence in how it decreases brain function and specifically makes it more likely that someone poisoned by lead as a child will partake in riskier behavior and potentially criminal behavior.

You can ignore that if you want and go with a couple of economists' inferred data, but I'm sticking with the best available hard science. Feel free to read the link I made, I'm not a scientist and it's not "my" argument.
It should be obvious to everyone that unwanted children are not going to do well in society. Your idiotic quip about "less people less crime" is noted and dismissed. I mean seriously, man, can't you think or can't you fucking understand how being born into poverty and unwanted might fucking contribute to you growing up in a world that where you find yourself surrounded by crime and how being in a gang is how you make your mark? Are you really that fucking sociopathic and cuddled that you can't get that?

This is the first post I've ever read by you and quite honestly you can't understand compounding issues at all so you really, really need to shut up on this subject.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,287
6,125
136
It should be obvious to everyone that unwanted children are not going to do well in society. Your idiotic quip about "less people less crime" is noted and dismissed. I mean seriously, man, can't you think or can't you fucking understand how being born into poverty and unwanted might fucking contribute to you growing up in a world that where you find yourself surrounded by crime and how being in a gang is how you make your mark? Are you really that fucking sociopathic and cuddled that you can't get that?

This is the first post I've ever read by you and quite honestly you can't understand compounding issues at all so you really, really need to shut up on this subject.

It's not obvious to me, because it very clearly depends on the nature of that society that one is born into. I don't see why that isn't obvious to you, in fact. I also don't see why you presume that 'unwanted' equates to 'being born into poverty'. Nor do I see any reason for you to get so insanely aggressive and abusive about that point (unless you've ingested too much lead, perhaps?). And why the leap to 'being in a gang', as if criminal gangs are some sort of universal thing, and not a product of particular societies.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,328
7,062
136
It should be obvious to everyone that unwanted children are not going to do well in society. Your idiotic quip about "less people less crime" is noted and dismissed. I mean seriously, man, can't you think or can't you fucking understand how being born into poverty and unwanted might fucking contribute to you growing up in a world that where you find yourself surrounded by crime and how being in a gang is how you make your mark? Are you really that fucking sociopathic and cuddled that you can't get that?

This is the first post I've ever read by you and quite honestly you can't understand compounding issues at all so you really, really need to shut up on this subject.
So, don't read what I wrote, and then throw a tantrum. Nice.

First off, your idiotic quip that I said unwanted children do better than wanted children is just that, an idiotic quip.

Second off, in my mother fucking post that you either chose not to read, or lack the reading comprehension to understand, LITERALLY stated that there are multiple reasons for crime. So, go back and read it, practice your reading comprehension, or go scream hysterically at someone else.

Third, point to where I stated in any fucking way or form that children who aren't being cuddled or whatever the fuck you're thinking about doesn't play a role in child development. Please, I'll wait right here, master debater.

If this is the first post you've read by me, then you must not only be real fucking new here, but you must also skip any post that requires more than 10 seconds of reading, which sure the fucking isn't my bad.

Because guess what champ. You missed my entire fucking multiple posts in this very thread that laid out links and details.

Holy shit, who the fuck are you?

You're going to skip the other posts in this thread where I had a discussion and just start hurling insults and tell me to shut up?

You're a fucking clown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

ASK THE COMMUNITY