Aborting the crime rate

During the Clinton years, America experienced the most dramatic decline in the murder rate since the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition and put bootleggers out of business (except for those thriving in the suburbs). Homicide rates have plummeted over 30 percent and violent crime and property crime have fallen between 15 and 20 percent.\nThere are a number of explanations for this fantastic reduction in crime. Many of these are obvious: community-oriented policing, the increased number of individuals in prison due to the war on drugs and perhaps most importantly, the United States was experiencing the greatest economy in the history of the world at the time.\nThere is perhaps another explanation that is not so well-known. According to John J. Donohue III (of Stanford Law School) and Steven D. Levitt (of the University of Chicago and the American Bar Association), the decrease in the crime rate is due, in large part, to the legalization of abortion ("Legalized Abortion and Crime," September 1999).\nYou see, none of the so-called obvious explanations for the reduction in crime "can provide an entirely satisfactory explanation for the large, widespread and persistent drop in crime in the 1990's" (Donohue & Levitt). Many of the obvious factors had been in place before the dramatic change occurred. Moreover, the very nature of the drop in crime defies said factors in that it occurred in areas that both applied new techniques (such as the improvement of the police force in New York) and those that did not (such as the ever-despised LAPD … remember Rodney King?).\nThe only obvious factor that tended to have a blanket effect on the nation (besides Clinton, since I'm sure some of you would be willing to contest me on his praise) was the economy. However, previous research has provided only a marginal correlation between the economy as a whole and crime.\nYet, it is exactly the economy that explains the drop.\nIndividuals who grow up in the kung-fu grip of poverty are disproportionately predisposed to criminal activity of a violent nature. Also, children who grow up unloved because they were unwanted and/or because they created an unbearable burden on their parent's quality of life have a greater tendency to become criminals than those who were loved and cared for.\nAs should be obvious, people who want children are more apt to love them and provide them with a nurturing environment. Whereas, individuals who do not want children and cannot afford them tend to resent their children and provide them with an environment that is, how should I say, less than nourishing.\n By the by, of the two kinds of parents, who do you think is more likely to have an abortion? Hint, it's not the parents who want kids.\n In the wake of 1973's Roe v. Wade, over a million abortions began occurring annually. Such a huge wave of abortions obviously has to have some impact. Well, this is it:\n The individuals who receive abortions are less likely to provide a loving environment and tend to be less financially able to provide for the children they carried. The children, had they been born, would have led lives that would have placed them at statistically greater odds of becoming violent criminals. Since the peak age of criminal activity is roughly 18-24, the aborted children would have been making their impacts on crime roughly in 1991,18 years after they would have been born had it not been for Roe.\n1991 is when the crime rate began to fall …\nSo, it seems that we must kill the poor to eradicate violent crime.