[Mamzelle]

You don't have to be anti-child or pro-abort to acknowledge the cruel logic of Levitt's (who happens to be brilliant on other fronts) assertions.

While I hope a reasonable refutation can be developed, I fear it won't wash. It is better to make the moral argument against this newest apologia of abortion...or, perhaps better yet, to use it as a reproach.

[Mr. Silverback]

You don't have to be anti-child or pro-abort to acknowledge the cruel logic of Levitt's (who happens to be brilliant on other fronts) assertions. While I hope a reasonable refutation can be developed, I fear it won't wash. It is better to make the moral argument against this newest apologia of abortion...or, perhaps better yet, to use it as a reproach.

You didn't read the whole article. There's a very effective refutation of Levitt in the second half. For example, if Levitt wants to say Roe vs. Wade is keeping the streets safe, he needs to explain why the homicide rate among 25 year olds began falling in 1981, when the first abortion victims would have been eight years old.

[T'wit]

>> While I hope a reasonable refutation can be developed

As the late Richard Weaver taught, Ideas have consequences. For a change in behavior such as this reduction in the crime rate, look for a prior change in ideas. Perhaps the answer is no more complicated than a drawing back from the moral anarchism of the 1960s.

[mbraynard]

The logic is false, though. Colson does a good job explaining it. Did you read the article?

Here's another stat - if you look at the counties that have the highest abortion rate, you also find the highest amount of crime. That alone demonstrates that abortions are not causal to net lower crime.