A number of Portuguese reporters have contacted me asking my opinion about the nationwide vote to consider whether women in that country should be allowed to have abortions.
After some thought, I decided not to reply to any of these press inquiries. The reason is that my research in abortion and crime, as discussed in Freakonomics, is virtually irrelevant to any discussion of whether abortion should be legal. It is true that I believe that legalized abortion, by reducing the number of unwanted children, lowers future crime. On the other hand, if you put any value on either a fetus or a woman’s right to choose, any benefits from lower crime get swamped by these other considerations. I could have tried to convey this point to the reporters, but given past interactions with journalists on this topic, that is not the answer they want to hear, and thus, not what makes it into the stories.
Ultimately, legalized abortion is a moral and political issue, not an economic one (even under my incredibly loose definition of what economics encompasses). My opinion simply doesn’t matter.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
What if the question from the press was: “Does the vote matter?” “Or what increase in the crime rate might you expect to see?”
I realize these questions might not be perfect. For instance states (or countries in this case) that consider such legislation self-select to some degree (i.e. might already have low crime rates [or not]). Alternatively, your findings with respect to the degree of crime reduction (or increase) might not be generalizable. Point being, your research has policy implications, though the press was asking you a much more subjective question. (That is also not to imply that policy decisions aren’t made using sometimes subjective advice/data).
What if the question from the press was: “Does the vote matter?” “Or what increase in the crime rate might you expect to see?”
I realize these questions might not be perfect. For instance states (or countries in this case) that consider such legislation self-select to some degree (i.e. might already have low crime rates [or not]). Alternatively, your findings with respect to the degree of crime reduction (or increase) might not be generalizable. Point being, your research has policy implications, though the press was asking you a much more subjective question. (That is also not to imply that policy decisions aren’t made using sometimes subjective advice/data).
Good call. I am glad to see you are not becoming one of those pundits who will wax philosophic (or economic, if you prefer) on any topic you may have discussed in any capacity.
Abortion is a complex societal issue wrapped up in morals, religion, concepts of Government’s role in our lives, etc. What your analysis uncovered is very interesting, but it seems unlikely that any Country would decide this issue based on that alone. Further, you do not even know if you analysis applies to Portugal (banning Soccer may reduce crime more, for all we know
Good call. I am glad to see you are not becoming one of those pundits who will wax philosophic (or economic, if you prefer) on any topic you may have discussed in any capacity.
Abortion is a complex societal issue wrapped up in morals, religion, concepts of Government’s role in our lives, etc. What your analysis uncovered is very interesting, but it seems unlikely that any Country would decide this issue based on that alone. Further, you do not even know if you analysis applies to Portugal (banning Soccer may reduce crime more, for all we know
Good for you. I’ve always held that (although I don’t agree with most abortions) if the issue ever comes to a popular vote, as a male I would conscientiously object to exercise my right to participate. Because the share of the burden of pregnancy is an overwhelming inequality favoring the female, males really have zero say in the matter; in my opinion.
Good for you. I’ve always held that (although I don’t agree with most abortions) if the issue ever comes to a popular vote, as a male I would conscientiously object to exercise my right to participate. Because the share of the burden of pregnancy is an overwhelming inequality favoring the female, males really have zero say in the matter; in my opinion.
Kudos to you, Levitt, for recognizing that there’s more to morality and legality than economics. Not all economists write as if they recognize this point.
Kudos to you, Levitt, for recognizing that there’s more to morality and legality than economics. Not all economists write as if they recognize this point.