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.
Facebook
Twitter