Don't Kill the Child that Isn't Loved

So, there's this theory that legalization of abortion in 1973 has led to a reduction in crime. And, it's pretty well substantiated.

Just what are we anti-abortion types to do?

My thought is that we shouldn't be surprised that abortion might reduce crime. After all, isn't it a given that lack of love affects a child's upbringing? Many of the aborted children are in homes that do not want them. Lack of love. So, if a nurtured and loved child is less likely to grow up to be a criminal, then, of course if we get rid of these children, it leads to a reduction in crime.

But, does that mean abortion is the answer? Does this mean we should abort children to reduce our crime? No. Concluding abortion is an answer to crime is the same as saying we should take all children who aren't loved and kill them, as that will just as surely reduce our crime rates.

The answer isn't to abort the child, but rather to increase the love for it once it is born. How can we place the unwanted child in a better home? Adoption, surely, is one answer.

The unborn children are victims if they are unwanted. Why victimize them more by killing them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw&feature=related

Here's four of my posts from the Facebook thread that presented this video. No need to read them unless you want, as they say little more than what I have already said. They do give a little of what is in the video, though, so read that if you want.

John Edwin Jackson Interesting, I say, making three of us. Just with a listen-through of the video, no more, his evidence seems good, his assertion correct. He appears to be putting it beyond coincidence by noting that the five states that legalized abortion ...

three years before Roe v. Wade experienced a drop in crime three years quicker than the rest of the nation, and noting how the states that made abortions easier to get experienced a 30 percent greater drop in crime. It would seem all that is left is, did he do a fair study, and was the methodology fair? Off the top, I see no reason to think he wasn't fair, though.

 

John Edwin Jackson Though three of us say, "Interesting," perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the study at all. Don't we already assume nurturing and love affects how the child turns out? Isn't that a given? Levitt's study is but a statistical verification of that. Parents who show love for their children are going to have better children. No surprise there.

 

John Edwin Jackson One could argue that by concluding abortion is an answer to crime is the same as saying we should take all children who aren't loved and kill them, in order to reduce crime nationwide. The answer isn't to have abortions, but to increase the love for the at-risk children, find a way to bring them into earth in a better environment.

John Edwin Jackson We don't kill already-born children because they aren't loved, so why should we kill those who aren't yet born because they will be brought into a world that will not love them enough? They are already victims. Taking their lives only increases the degree of being victimized. Though it be difficult, we must find ways to place the children into better environments. Adoption is probably the best answer.