by Jed Estrada

In 1995, the Department of Justice reported a dramatic decrease in serious violent crimes. After a steady rise of criminal violence, this year marked the greatest drop ever, and started a steady decline that continued through the turn of the century. There have been many theories about these facts, including the notion that this is due to the legalization of abortion in 1973. Several professors and lawyers have published papers and articles citing this explanation. Their reasoning is based on statistics that since the poor, uneducated, and single parents are more likely to have an abortion, and since most crimes are committed by 18 to 25 year olds from poor, single, and uneducated parents, according to even more statistics, that the millions of abortions per year since 1973 basically aborted a generation of criminals. Aside from the obvious discrimination and defamation of the poor and uneducated, this reasoning relies far too heavily on a slippery slope fallacy. Is this how society justifies abortion? By saying that they would all grow into criminals anyway?

Lliberal professors saw this as an easy opportunity for put in a plug for abortion. Liberals have been waiting for the chance to jump on the benefits of abortion ever since it was legalized. But what was really the reason for the decrease of crime in1995? Well if we were trying to twist events that into a political statement, it would be just as easy to say that this was because of the newly elected republican legislators, or that the conservative appointed judges of Reagan and Bush Sr. (who according to the Law and Order research society were much less supportive of criminal defendants) were finally starting to curb crime. But in all objectivity, it should be noted that neither of these politically polarized remedies have much of a direct connection on criminal actions, and crime rates themselves. I think we should take a look at the obvious: the statistics.

The Department of Justice uses two sources to create its statistics. It compiles documented arrests, along police and FBI reports from the Uniform Crime Report, but it also relies heavily on National Crime Victimization Survey. The NCVS polls an average of 77,200 households per year, randomly selected by the Census Bureau. The survey asks questions on domestic violence, and is launched from the principle that there are many crimes which aren’t reported to the police. However, in 1989 the NCVS went through a redesign, in which the methodology of the survey was changed, purportedly to improve the gathering of information. The questions were also changed to be more direct, according to the Bureau of Justice. This new method was phased in between 1993 and 1995, in perfect timing with the documented decrease in crime. The interesting part is that the decrease was almost entirely according to the NCVS portion of the statistics. The police arrests and reports for serious violent crimes remained roughly the same, with only smaller decreases towards the end of the 1990s.

It is a sad thing when we become used to evil. This has happened in our nation after 35 years of abortion, where it is starting to become just another side for a politician to take, and not the life and death struggle that it truly is. It is something that is mentioned almost as an afterthought from the pulpits, and just another statistic in our country. Now we have come to the point where people in our nation are showing it to be a benefit. What is truly sad is that the Justice system in our nation is devaluing life on the one hand by narrowing the margins, and lowering the statistics of serious crimes, and then our professors credit the murder of millions of unborn as our solution to crime. Yet even with the sharp drops on the graphs, and the coincidental introduction of a survey redesign, there is still no logical correlation between abortion and crime rates. The statistical evidence that tries to link the two also fails to take into account the ratio of crime with population increases. Dr. John Lott, professor of Law at Yale University, and John Whitley, an Australian economist published their own rebuttal article, in which they applied the theory to all the states, and all the statistics, including abortions before the Roe. vs. Wade decision. Not surprisingly, the evidence did not show a proportional decrease in crime. "Many factors that reduce murder rates, but the legalization of abortion is not one of them. Of the over six thousand regressions that we estimated here, only one regression implied even a small reduction in the murder rate” said their summary.

Do we really understand the value of life today? Do we feel anything when we hear that 50 million babies have been aborted since 1973? Does it hurt us to know that 300,000 people were murdered in Darfur? Do we weep for the 80,000 people killed in an earthquake in Myanmar? A friend on mine recently asked me, "what is life worth, and what is worth dying for?” For example, 60 million soldiers died for us in WWII for the freedom and safety of America and her allies. So would it be worth if the reality was that abortion was decreasing crime? The difference between taking a life and giving a life, is ultimately love. Sacrifice is noble, and the Bible says that there is no greater love. It is a sacrifice that is vastly opposite to the selfishness that defines abortion. Killing only leads to more death, or as Dr. John Lott says, “Essentially, the message is, if you choose death, you get death. With interest.”