The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
newreaper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Legalizing Abortion Decreases the Crime Rate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,095 times Debate No: 25222
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

You have asked to debate this, so here is the challenge. Please read everything below.

Full Resolution: The legalization of abortion will most likely reduce the crime rate 16-21 years after its passing.

Also, evidence that the prohibiton of abortion increases the crime rate is also relevant to this debate.

Definitions:

Legalizing: "...the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal."[1]

Abortion: "Any of various procedures that result in such a termination of pregnancy."[2]

Decreases: "To diminish or lessen in extent, quantity, strength, power, etc..."[3]

Crime Rate: "The ratio of crimes in an area to the population of that area; expressed per 1000 population per year."[4]

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules,and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources:

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= (enter "Crime Rate Definition" into Google)
newreaper

Con

First I would like to clarify I am in fact pro abortion, as a moral standard I agree with it. As for the purposes of this debate I feel this as a justification is... well debatable. I think that was what you meant by round 1just saying the premise on why I wish to debate and if I'm wrong I just lost a round :p
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank newreaper for accepting this debate. I apologize if my argument is a little underdeveloped, but it has been busy for me this week.

I. Common Sense in Theory

Abortion is most likely to lessen the number of poor, unwanted, and mistreated children by teenage, unmarried, poor women. In fact, ""Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)"
Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level"[1] This means that 69% of the women who have abortions make an annual income of less than $22000. So, the vast majority of women who have abortions are poor.

Also, "Moreover, Gruber, Levine, and Staiger [1999, p. 265] conclude that "the average living circumstances of cohorts born immediately after abortion became legalized improved sub- stantially relative to preceding cohorts." They go on to note that "the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into less favor- able circumstances if the pregnancies had not been terminated: they would have been 60 percent more likely to live in a single- parent household, 50 percent more likely to live in poverty, 45 percent more likely to be in a household collecting welfare, and 40 percent more likely to die during the first year of life."[2]

Poor people are more likely to commit crimes: "Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration."[3] In fact, the children of women in high-risk groups are more likely to be in prison: "In 1991, 14 percent of prisoners re- ported growing up with neither parent present, and 43 percent reported having only one parent (compared with 3 percent and 24 percent, respectively, for the overall population). Thirty-eight percent of prisoners report that their parents or guardians abused alcohol or drugs; almost one-third of female inmates re- port being sexually abused before the age of eighteen."[2]

By logic, if you reduce the numbers of the highest risk to criminality groups, you are going to have reduced crime. And, most women who seek abortions are poor and in high risk groups.

II. Statstics and Proof

There is a huge lot of statistics and information to back up this theory. In fact, it is kind of hard to see how this theory can be disproven. I will mainly be talking about the US's crime drop of the 90s here when I reference the "crime drop".

II.i. High-Abortion States Have Bigger Crime Decreases while Low-Abortion States Actually INCREASE

States that have higher abortion rates recievied most significant drops in crime.

"2) After abortion was legalized, the availability of abortions differed dramatically across states. In some states like North Dakota and in parts of the deep South, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion even after Roe v. Wade. If one compares states that had high abortion rates in the mid 1970s to states that had low abortion rates in the mid 1970s, you see the following patterns with crime. For the period from 1973-1988, the two sets of states (high abortion states and low abortion states) have nearly identical crime patterns. Note, that this is a period before the generations exposed to legalized abortion are old enough to do much crime. So this is exactly what the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts. But from the period 1985-1997, when the post Roe cohort is reaching peak crime ages, the high abortion states see a decline in crime of 30% relative to the low abortion states. Our original data ended in 1997. If one updated the study, the results would be similar.)"[4] "The magnitude of the differences in the crime decline between high- and low-abortion states was over 25 percent for homicide, violent crime and property crime. For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an increase of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change."[5]

II.ii. Early Action States Have Reductions in Crime Three Years Before the Mean

Five states legalized abortion three years before the legalization of abortion and in turn recievied crime drops three years before the rest of the nation.

"Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime."[4]

"...the cumulative decrease in crime between 1982–1997 for early-legalizing states compared with the rest of the nation is 16.2 percent greater for murder, 30.4 percent greater for violent crime, and 35.3 percent greater for property crime."[2]

II.iii. Real Evidence

Is there any real proof? Yes.

"An increase in the effective abortion rate of 100 per 1000 live births (the mean effective abortion rate in 1997 for violent crime is 180 with a standard deviation of 96 across states) is associated with a reduc- tion of 12 percent in murder, 13 percent in violent crime, and 9 percent in property crime."[2]

"When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before."[4]

III. Internationally

The same trend can be seen worldwide.

"The evidence from Canada, Australia, and Romania also support the hypothesis that abortion reduces crime."[4]

"Reyes (2002) reports somewhat smaller, but still substantial estimates of abortion on crime using U.S. data. Sen (2002) finds a link between abortion and crime in Canadian data that mirrors the U.S. experience. Pop-Eleches (2002) documents the effects of an unexpected abortion ban imposed in Romania in 1966."[5]

Sources:

[1]: http://www.guttmacher.org...
[2]: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
[3]: http://capaassociation.org...
[4]: http://www.freakonomics.com...
[5]: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
newreaper

Con

1.) Less repercussion on the female means more incentive to commit the crime
Although certain crimes may drop other crimes like rape will become more appealing as there are/ will be fewer problems caused by the act of rape itself,
2.) Abortion has its expenses
Obama care has put funding towards abortion too make it cheaper, but the process of getting the insurance is complex and someone of a lower class background may be less informed and assume the insurance to be paid of by the taxpayer.
3.)Abortion can have a affect on the person and the people around them
unfortunately not every family is warm hearted and accepting of situations. Abortion can lead to disownage or a family breakdown. This can cause the person to resort to other means of crime, either because they have been forced to fend for themselves, or the emotional stress can lead them to taking drugs. (which on it's own can escalate into more crime) In both situations the likely hood of being in the situation of needing an abortion rises, but because of previous experience will leave them traumatised into keeping it. This can apply to males as well.
4.) Men are often ignored on what should happen
Because of the view: 'it's the womans body she should have the choice.' Most men are ignored on what they want too happen. The life of the father can be put at risk, this can lead to them being violent or withdrawn. If the mother chooses to keep the child and the father doesn't want it this can lead to them being violent or neglecting the child, however if neither parent had a choice and was forced too keep it although the burden would be spread equally on both parents making the situations less tense and dangerous
5.)Legal abortion scares people
I'm not entirely sure why, but people can result to inpropper rebellion. Violence and arson are usually the two main forms of protest against such a decision. People who are uneducated or highly religious will stick to more extreme forms of protest to stop abortion being legal.
6.)There are no statistics- 'pizza does not cause ice cream profits'
This is harder to explain. Proving that abortion reduces crime rats is easy, however many laws and regulations are passed. In theory because of the law that disabled discrimination was passed there was a crime drop. More disabled people had jobs therefore they weren't in danger of getting attacked. Through this caused mass acceptance of handicapped people reducing crime rates further still. Any and every statistic you used is applicable here. The numbers say crime dropped they do not say what caused it.

http://webaim.org...(example of a law released at the same time) - section 504
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank newreaper for presenting his arguments.

I. Less Repercussion on the Female Means More Incentive to Commit the Crime

This is highly unlikely for two reasons.

One, rapists rape women to get power over them. Knowing that the woman they are raping cannot have an abortion will put more power in the hands of the rapist, because the woman will be less likely to land a job, much less a well enough-paying career and it damages the woman's chances at marriage. Again, this puts even more power into the hands of the rapist, which is likely to actually increase the number of rapes.

Two, this isn't going to stop a rapist at all. I mean if a rapist wants to rape a woman, why should he care whether or not the woman has a baby or not? That's nine months in the future and not his problem.

I apologize for having no sources or studies to support my claim, but this is an assertion by my opponent that he has to prove. He has the BoP with this hypothesis, therefore he needs to provide evidence to back up his claim.

II. Abortion Has its Expenses

This isn't really relevant to this debate, but I will still supply a quick counter to this argument.

"[The average abortion] costs about $300–$950 in the first trimester."[1]

The average cost of raising a child for 18 years in an American West city as a single parent with an income of less than $59410 while not planning on paying for this child's education is: $157410. [2]

What's cheaper and easier, an abortion that takes only one day and costs, at most, only $950, or raising a child that takes 18 years and costs at least $157410? The former, obviously.

And again, I don't see how this negates the resolution, it's just a general argument against abortion, not on how it decreases the crime rate.

III. Abortion Can Have an Effect on the Person and the People around Them

This is misguided. This is actually what happens if you are DENIED an abortion, not if you have one.

An abortion can be done in under one day, but if the woman is forced to have a child, everyone around her will know. Most families like this would be even madder by the fact that their daughter or husband (in cases of adultery, most likely) conceived a baby in the first place than if she had an abortion. And if she is forced to give birth to the child, everyone will know, but if she has an abortion, only the doctors will know.

Again, I apologize for not providing any sources to back up my claim, but again, you have BoP and must do it first.

IV. Men Are often Ignored on What Should Happen

How could the life of the father be put at risk? Isn't it the mother's that is put at risk?

Also, my opponent claims that keeping the child would "make the situation less tense and dangerous", but then claims that "[If] the father doesn't want it this can lead to them being violent or withdrawn". This is a contradiction because if the father doesn't want the child in the first place, why would abortion not be the smart choice? And if neither parent wants it...

V. Legal Abortion Scares People

You are correct here, but the "uneducated and highly religious" people in this country who would commit violence or arson to anything related to abortion (i.e. a clinic, a woman who had one, etc...) is very small, so this is almost negligable when counting countrywide crime rate statistics.

VI. There Are no Statistics - 'Pizza does not cause ice cream profits'

I will cover this in two points.

VI.i. There Are no Statistics-'Pizza does not cause ice cream profits' - Rebuttal One: Mentioned Evidence

Well, I provided some statistics and evidence for my claim, and I will repeat some here:

"An increase in the effective abortion rate of 100 per 1000 live births (the mean effective abortion rate in 1997 for violent crime is 180 with a standard deviation of 96 across states) is associated with a reduc- tion of 12 percent in murder, 13 percent in violent crime, and 9 percent in property crime."[3]

So why are higher abortion rates linked to a 12%-13%-9% reduction in crime per 100/1000 increase?

"For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an increase of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states."[4]

So why do high-abortion states have huge crime drops while low-abortion states have slight crimes increases?

"Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime."[5]
"...the cumulative decrease in crime between 1982–1997 for early-legalizing states compared with the rest of the nation is 16.2 percent greater for murder, 30.4 percent greater for violent crime, and 35.3 percent greater for property crime."[3]

So why do the early-legalizing states have crimes drops a couple of years before the mean?

"Reyes (2002) reports somewhat smaller, but still substantial estimates of abortion on crime using U.S. data. Sen (2002) finds a link between abortion and crime in Canadian data that mirrors the U.S. experience. Pop-Eleches (2002) documents the effects of an unexpected abortion ban imposed in Romania in 1966."[4]

So why do other countries show the same trend?

VI.ii. There Are no Statistics-'Pizza does not cause ice cream profits' - Rebuttal Two: New Evidence

"...we show that the abortion-related drop in crime is occurring only for those who today are under the age of 25. This is exactly the age group we would expect to be affected by the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s."[6]

Sources:

[1]: http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
[2]: http://www.babycenter.com...
[3]: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
[4]: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
[5]: http://www.freakonomics.com...
[6]: http://www.slate.com...
newreaper

Con

I. Common Sense in Theory

Okay your first sentence immediately contradicts one of your defences. People who are have substantially low income are very unlikely to be able afford an abortion; a cheaper abortion will cost 4% roughly what the 'single women' earn a year. So poor unwanted children will still most probably be born.

Your second paragraph stereotypes and categorises a lot of people. It's understandable being in a poor background leads to a poor upbringing, but not every pauper is a thief. '50 percent more likely to live in poverty' so the other half is just as likely to be out of poverty, this covers no ground for your defence.

The text you quote from seems very unreliable; it often says there is no complete accurate way of measuring this and that they are usually making assumptions. e.g. 'Testing that hypothesis is complicated by the fact that the age of criminals is not directly observable.' they then go on to say 'Thus, we can analyse whether arrests by cohort are a function of the abortion rate.' basically they don't have the data yet so they're making assumptions that correlate with their view.

How does having any number of parents, or being sexually abused affect abortion? The environment that someone is brought up in is out of their control. Abortion stops them being born, determining what will happen in their upbringing impossible. Again it's making a blind assumption on somebody and their lifestyle.

'By logic, if you reduce the numbers of the highest risk to criminality groups, you are going to have reduced crime. And, most women who seek abortions are poor and in high risk groups'- that's a very corrupt view. By killing the off the problem the world will be a better place, when has that ever worked. Also to re-establish my point, abortions are expensive for those cannot afford them, a child may cost a lot in the long run, but an abortion each month for 18 years (I know unrealistic, but it's the point of funding I want to establish) would cost $136800 (without the increase penalty of having more than one abortion), the physical effort and planning required for an abortion and the fact that the background you keep referring to will never afford $157410 over 18 years, shows that they are 1.) Both of similar value financially 2.) Abortion is an immediate cost instead of a payment over time, financially keeping the child would be smarter.
On the point of your sources, I found that you could actually raise a child for $130320 using one of the sources you provided for 18 years that's a big difference and is in fact cheaper than an abortion. Also shows a way of how you can pick and choose information to defend your argument.

II. Statistics and Proof

You should by now realise that my belief is that your statistics are unbelievable and corrupt.

'In fact, it is kind of hard to see how this theory can be disproven.'- it can't, but it cannot be proven either

'Low-Abortion States Actually INCREASE'- this goes against your argument, abortion may be low, but there's still abortion, so it isn't working you're selecting data that defends your argument instead of general data

'Low-Abortion States'- all of these fall under low income states, all but 1 of the bottom 5 for abortion rates fall in the lower band of income. 3 conclusions can be made from this 1.) Low income = cannot afford abortion 2.) Your studies have been conducted in more prosperous areas, places where crime rate will inevitably drop regardless of abortion
3.) Abortion in fact has no effect on crime rates as places where there is still abortion, crime rates are increasing.

'Our original data ended in 1997. If one updated the study, the results would be similar' - nope it wouldn't by any logical explanation crime rate would remain the same from that point. Concluding that crime rate would continue to decrease would lead too no crime, or better yet nobody being born.
Also you never show ratios, statistically how many people are still being arrested to people who aren't.
There were 15,284,300 reported arrests in 1997, and 266,490,000 people that's a ratio of 1 crime to 17 people
14,094,186 reported arrests in 2005, and 281,421,906 people that's a ratio of 1 crime to every 19 people
So this could potentially be beneficial for you, however population increase (this means abortions are not happening as often) and the added crime drop (which abortion could not possibly take credit for) shows that even though abortion is still happening crime continues to drop, the overall affect it would have had on the crime drop would have stopped by this point. Not only, surely if by your reasoning if more people are being born there should still be more crimes, if less people are being born there should be less crimes the ratio should remain the same.

‘4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. ‘This again shows the flaws, one: poor states cannot afford abortion, two: Crime rates are still not decreasing in place where there is legal abortion.

The first state to legalise abortion was New York, which is one of the higher class states. Abortion was introduced in 1970 http://www.disastercenter.com..., look at the table the information shows that there is a steady decrease continually before the effects of abortion could be presented. So any observation made over any period of time cannot be directly linked to abortion the gradient in better off states for crime always tend negatively.

"...the cumulative decrease in crime between 1982–1997 for early-legalizing states compared with the rest of the nation is 16.2 percent greater for murder, 30.4 percent greater for violent crime, and 35.3 percent greater for property crime." – Again higher earning states always have lower crime rates, that's how the world works

‘II.iii. Real Evidence' just to quote the whole section really

The fact that you say that this is real evidence as opposed to what was said earlier isn't makes no sense.

III. Internationally

‘The evidence from Canada, Australia, and Romania also support the hypothesis that abortion reduces crime.' Again selected information, the UK introduced abortion in 1967 homicide rates continued increasing even after the ‘lagged' period of time. When stats work in your favour it is easy to use them, but when there is no evidence or evidence that combats or contradicts your statement re-think your position don't ignore the facts.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting his rebuttals and participating in a great debate.

I. Common Sense in Theory

My opponent seems to keep failing to realize that having an abortion is a lot cheaper than having a baby and raising it for 18 years. I mean an abortion is so much cheaper. Not to mention, think of it this way: If abortion is prohibited, 0 babies will be aborted, while if abortion was legalized, X babies would be aborted. So, abortion legalization will mean aborted babies.

My opponent misunderstood my point here. When I said that '50 percent are more likely to live in poverty', that means as a comparison of the general population, not the other 50 won't live in poverty. And poor does not mean in poverty. Poverty is defined as less than $10600 (Guttmacher). Also, I didn't say all poor people are criminals, I just said they are more likely to. This is relevant because if abortion is done more by the largest crime rate groups, it will have a visible effect.

My opponent is correct is saying that crime data is not complete, but arrest data is pretty good at being extrapolated to determine which age group is committing the crime. This is a very accurate method, and thus the methods they used are very reliable.

II. End

I apologize, but I am scraped for time, so I will have to cut some arguments short.

1) Low income means no abortions

"Aside from poverty, little changed in the profile of women obtaining abortions between 2000 and 2008. A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions: Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients in 2008 were in their 20s; 45% were never-married and not living with a partner; 61% were already mothers; 42% were living below the federal poverty line; 36% were white; 59% had at least some college education; and 73% were religiously affiliated. But certain groups of women those who were in their 20s, cohabiting, black or poor were overrepresented among abortion patients."(Guttmacher)

Poor people do use abortions.

My opponent again fails to realize that abortions are cheaper. Just $500 or the full price of a child. You are saving thousands by abortions.

2) Prosperous Area does not mean Crime Rate Drop

My opponent is correct in saying that higher-income states have less crime, but they won't have more significant crime drops because of that. Also, the high abortion states have huge swaths of people in extreme poverty. This will create an abortion boom. "In contrast, the crime trends in high and low abortion states were similar over a period from 1973-85."(Donahue) So the levels were alike, thus the data is accurate.

Again,

"...the cumulative decrease in crime between 1982–1997 for early-legalizing states compared with the rest of the nation is 16.2 percent greater for murder, 30.4 percent greater for violent crime, and 35.3 percent greater for property crime."[2]

Is there any real proof? Yes.

"An increase in the effective abortion rate of 100 per 1000 live births (the mean effective abortion rate in 1997 for violent crime is 180 with a standard deviation of 96 across states) is associated with a reduc- tion of 12 percent in murder, 13 percent in violent crime, and 9 percent in property crime."[2]

"When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before."[4]

You haven't refuted any of my arguments.
newreaper

Con

One, rapists rape women to get power over them' - how on Earth would you be able to make that assumption. Secondly you're also claiming that the world will not be accepting of the rape victim. The only thing that'll be affected is their emotional stability, which yes can prevent them landing a job, but no will not adhere to all victims.
'this isn't going to stop a rapist at all' so you agree abortion doesn't prevent all crime
You're right 1 abortion will not cost as much as a child, however it appears you do not realise how finances work. It is cheaper in the long run to have the abortion, but not everybody an afford the immediate costs. Again you have ignored information I supplied too you saying that it can be cheaper monthly to raise a child.
It is how you claim it will affect the crime rate. By singling out one brand of people, you keep saying people living in poverty will be the ones that get abortion (or low salary), but that in no way means they will be able too afford it.
III - yeah sorry was having an off day poor reasoning on my part.
'How could the life of the father be put at risk? Isn't it the mother's that is put at risk?' so you're saying bringing another life into the world is not a big life changing event and that only the mother is ever genuinely affected. No the father is also responsible, fair enough immediate health implications fall to the mother. However as a decision morally the father deserves a say.
You seem to misunderstand, I'm saying that the decision has been made prematurely. It means that anything were too happen both partners already know where they stand and will therefore be more prepared for the consequences.
'so this is almost negligible when counting countrywide crime rate statistics.'- have any results been taken? No so you cannot prove anything here just saying it's negligible does not make it so. The same can be said for your argument
'Well, I provided some statistics and evidence for my claim, and I will repeat some here:' - his is not statistical evidence, this is stats that mold in your favor. By carefully filtering out the pieces you don't want your argument can sound more founded when it isn't.
'compared to an increase of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states' This goes against your favor, abortion has still been legalised and the rate still increases.
Again you've chosen countries where abortion tended to your favour stop ignoring facts.
I have space so I'm responding to your last part as well
'So, abortion legalization will mean aborted babies' - of course it does and some of them are bound to be criminals, but not enough to make a difference
'not the other 50 won't live in poverty'- what so then that statistic is completely made up?
'And poor does not mean in poverty'- poor means survivable on low wage without many luxuries, these people will fine.
'if abortion is done more by the largest crime rate group'- it's the biggest crime rate group because it is the biggest group, no it will not have a visible effect. A small portion (like the negligible protesters) will be taken out, but certain crimes like that are usually gang organised and the spaces need to be filled.
Incomplete data is still incomplete- extrapolating it is just as well as saying that an assumption has been made. You will only extrapolate the data that you need and not the whole. A method that involves searching still filters
'Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients in 2008 were in their 20s...'- again more pointless stats. 100% of people who have abortions are women, does that mean lots of people have abortions? no. Your facts state that a majority of people having an abortion are in less prospered situations.
'Poor people do use abortions'- I never said they didn't. I'm saying less people who want them can have them
'My opponent again fails to realize that abortions are cheaper'- you fail realise that what I'm saying is that if they can afford an abortion they can afford a child
'My opponent is correct in saying that higher-income states have less crime, but they won't have more significant crime drops because of that'- in fact they will, better policing, bigger force, better paid electives, more educated, more money going into the system and more chance to make something out of their lives
'thus the data is accurate'- I never said it wasn't I'm saying you are filtering out data.
'You haven't refuted any of my arguments' - I cannot. You keep regurgitating the same copied and pasted stats, that I doubt highly you know of their genuine sources that have been found by others, that seem to defend your case nicely. Like I said before you ignore the facts that oppose your argument for the sake of making your argument seem more favorable. The simple truth is you cannot possibly measure the amount of criminals that aren't being born. You can try, but it is impossible.

I'll leave you on this one note, you can say abortion stops criminals being born. However at about aborting someone who could save lives. You cannot possibly count the number of potential doctors (and others of that nature) so how many people have dies because of abortion. Try counting that.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by newreaper 4 years ago
newreaper
my sources didn't get posted through, I'll post them here instead sorry
http://www.top5ofanything.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.census.gov...
http://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.nrlc.org...
http://www.disastercenter.com...
http://www.parliament.uk...
also they aren't in order but I cba after all I just did to find them
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
That's fine, but it might not be for a few weeks.
Posted by TheHunter 4 years ago
TheHunter
Ron-Paul,

Mind doing this debate again, when it's over?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
This is an easy con win if he knows what to do
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadams, I won't counter your arguments in the comments. There will be plenty refuting in my arguments. Enjoy.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ron, your wording actually shows weakness. Your liberal usage of the word "fallacious" leads me to beleive you are acting defensively as well as hostile. In other words, it's like politicians when they are losing a fight.

None of my reasoning is near fallacious. This implies unjust reasoning. This was in response to me saying other effects of abortion is detrimental. However, the reasoning is sound and you can't escape it. An increase in pre-marital sex and a decrease marriage after a women gets pregnant. Most of these people choose to keep the child, then, in unmarried households and much of the time single households. The increase of births into single parents is widely accepted in the field. That's why all authors except Levitt and Donahue are skeptical of the thesis. The increase of these births are usually linked to violent crime. Based on this the net decrease in crime is zero (if you add that into Levitts study). However, Levitts study failed to control for many factors. When controlled murder rises 7%. (Lott & Whitley 2000, and again in Lott Whitley 2007, and Lott 2007, Foote & Goetz 2005).

Further, Levitt DID NOT CONTROL FOR COMCEAL CARRY. He dismissed it as his personal beleuvd is that it has no effect. Though studies show it decreases crime 8%, and even more in other categories. (Lott 1997, Lott 2010, Lott & Whitley 2003, and 13 others).

Other studies have researched the decline. These are the three main factors:

1) INCREASED INCARNATION RATES
2) DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES (less teenagers)
3) THE END OF THE COCAINE EPIDEMIC

(Ouimet 2005)

It studied the abortion hypothesis, it agrees it's not accurate.

Ron, there is no bad reasoning with this at all. Instead of using that word in response, get a real argument.
Posted by newreaper 4 years ago
newreaper
okay till then
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
That would be great (also, I love cats). I'll challenge you sometime today (my schedule is very sporadic).
Posted by newreaper 4 years ago
newreaper
if you wish to it would be my pleasure (cat walks on keyboard and makes me look like a fool)
Posted by newreaper 4 years ago
newreaper
if you wish too it woy pleasure
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ron-PaulnewreaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave statistical support for his claim, con offered little substance. Con rebutted the state analysis well, but got stomped every where else.
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
Ron-PaulnewreaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had clearer, more developed arguments than Con did. Pro organized his arguments a lot better than Con did, and also came off as a lot less biased and opinion-based.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Ron-PaulnewreaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion, Pro gave more rational arguments than Con. Like, for example, the "common sense in theory" argument. I believe that this argument was very good and I don't think that Con successfully refuted this argument. I also gave Pro the SG point because it was easier to read Pro's arguments than Con's. See, for example, Con's last round.