|
Patrick A. O’Donnell
A Classic
Fallacy within Freakonomics: Suggestion that Abortion Caused a
Crime Drop is a Comparing of Apples and Oranges
In 2005, Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner released a
book they had written that was entitled, “Freakonomics:
A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”.
Levitt is an economist from the
University of
Chicago while Dubner is a
journalist for the New York Times.
The book is intended to present applications of economics
to cultural matters revealing surprising results.
One topic covered in a chapter of the book is their submission
that legalized abortion beginning in 1973 has led to decreased
crime in the 1990’s.
A precursor to this chapter was an earlier paper that Levitt
wrote entitled "The
Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.
(See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics#cite_note-fox-1)
The proposition that abortion decreased crime contains a classic
error in its logic, a fallacy containing no truth or wisdom, and
certainly not advancing any understanding to be considered in
setting or assessing social policy. The definition of
“crime” prior to 1973, and the decriminalization of abortion,
actually included "abortion" as a "criminal act". It was
considered a particular case of violent homicide.
The definition of “crime” after the 1973
decriminalization of "abortion" no longer included "abortion" as
a "criminal act". The use of the single term “crime” can
not remain as a static term used to measure the effect of
abortion when the term itself has been so substantively altered.
The first definition for “crime” contradicts the latter
definition, and vice versa. In simple terms, prior to
decriminalizing abortion the term “crime” was an apple that
included the act of abortion.
After decriminalizing abortion “crime” was an orange that
did not include the act of abortion. Comparing the two is
comparing apples and oranges, it can not be done.
According to
Johnstronsarchive.net, in 1966, there were 1,028 abortions in
the whole US. The following year saw Colorado
de-criminalize abortion and the abortion numbers nationally grew
to 2,061 in 1967. By 1972, there were 13 states that
de-criminalized abortion and nationally there were 586,760
abortions. By 2008, more than 50 million surgical
abortions had been committed, but these were no longer part of
Levin's and Dubner's working definition of "crime" and thus were
not considered when highlighting that the "murder" rate had
supposedly dropped throught he 1990's.
Attempting to compare the
two differing definitions of “crime” results is ignoring the
fact that nationally there were 1,028 reported abortions in 1967
and from 1973 to 2009 there have been over 50 million abortions,
or about 1.5 million de-criminalized abortions per year.
"Crime" dropped, not by eliminating abortion, but by the simple
act of decriminalizing abortion, or rather by removing an entire
category of crime (abortion) from the term “crime”.
And in fact, what had been considered a serious case
of murder-now-turned-healthcare went from a very small national
number prior to de-criminalization to a "medical procedure"
occurring 1.5 million times a year. And
Levitt and Dubner
are trying to assert that overall violent crime actually
dropped!?!
Further, there analysis overlooks the fact that the
decriminalization of abortion resulted in encouraging the act of
abortion as, what Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
called in her 1993 opinion for the Casey v. Planned
Parenthood case, “insurance for failed birth control.”
This rise in the category of
“no-longer-considered-a-crime” of abortions is a big fact
to attempt to overlook; particularly since, prior to 1973,
abortion was still considered by most states and people to be a
violent crime of high magnitude.
In most states it was explicitly declared the death of a
human being, an innocent baby. To suggest that as a nation
we lowered the incidence of “crime” as a result of committing
millions and millions of "de-criminalized abortions" is simply
illogical and an erroneous analysis.
A consistent definition for the term, “crime” was not
used by Levitt and Dubner in their analysis and they wrongly
assert a consistent definition for the term “crime” in their
analysis.
This error of inconsistency renders
their conclusion to be meaningless at best and dangerously
misleading at worst.
The first victim of their report is truth itself.
The second victims are the mothers and children who are
injured by abortion while the mother is encouraged to do so by
the false and prejudice assumption that their child is destined
to be a criminal.
If we are to accept this fallacy as yielding any truth, we owe
it to ourselves to
de-criminalize all activity that we
presently deem as a crime, then we can live in a crime-free
society. Wouldn’t we owe that to ourselves if it were
true?
But it isn’t true.
Rather, don’t we owe ourselves the truth that de-criminalizing
abortion does affect the definition of crime and skews from
truth and into falsehood. The truth is that
de-criminalizing abortion has led to millions of abortions, each
being a pre-1973 crime and not a post-1973 “crime”. Levin’s and
Dubner’s proposition that abortion has led to a decline in crime
is a preposterous fallacy and deserves to be rejected as it is
false.
Instead of some inverse causal relationship between
abortion and crime, there is a need to recognize that there are
those in society who have changed their opinion of what is a
crime. Meanwhile
there are others who have the courage to acknowledge the crime
of taking a human life is not subject personal definition.
Abortion is not in a causal relationship with crime,
rather it is always an unnecessary crime.
Levin and Dubner have not provided an economic finding that
stands up to scrutiny in logic or as scholarly work.
Rather, Levin and Dubner have simply fallen into the
sophistry of a fallacy that is far from an economic good, much
less a common good.
I ascribe no nefarious motives to Levin and Dubner, but such
only raises other cautions in the reading and reliance on their
conclusions, especially in the realm of setting public policy.
Not a crusade against the whole of Freakonomics, I am
only seeking to correct their false analysis that can wrongly
influence public policy in the realm of human life threatened by
abortion. Levin’s
and Dubner’s blatant reliance on fallacy in this single chapter
of "Freakonomics" that I have studied now alarms me to other
possible sleight-of-hand in logic they may inadvertently applied
and over-looked in arriving at other unexpected conclusions
reached and reported in their book.
My recommendation is that their book
“Freakonomics,” as a source for basing public policy
would be ill-advised. As a
curiosity, because it is untrue, it is worthless. As
an inspiration to study the topic of fallacy within logic, their
book "Freakonomics" is likely to prove invaluable.
Patrick A. O’Donnell holds an MBA in Finance from Suffolk
University/Boston, a BBA from University of
Massachusetts/Amherst and a BA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles
College and Seminary/ Cromwell, CT.
He worked in the banking/real estate industry for eleven
years before working, from 1990 to the present, in the
non-profit sector assisting and educating pregnant mothers and
raising awareness of their concerns.
© 2012
Patrick A. O’Donnell
|
