You mentioned it as being your opinion, so I just went with that.
Adding IMO to the end was meant to just make it sound less of an absolutism, a convention I use to make introducing diametrically opposing ideas more palatable, but even typing "IMO" gave me pause when I wrote it because this is really not just my opinion but generally accepted science, I decided on adding it anyway because it softens the difference of opinion. Now that you have indulged in inordinate absolutism yourself, calling your position factual I only think it fair that you know that this isn't some idea of my own but something with a lot more science behind it than you are prepared to refute.
The Supreme Court ruled it legal in 1973, and most states follow suit quickly. At any rate, the number of abortions, according to the CDC, started rising immediately, from 1973 to 1979 the number of abortions doubled, from about 0.6 Million, (600,000), to 1.2 Million.
5 states legalized it 3 years prior to that, and in those states the crime rate dropped 3 years earlier than the other states. That is the key point you are ignoring that I made, not that in 1973 it became widespread (which is certainly true, just irrelevant to the point that the timing of the crime drop is clearly correlating with abortion and doing so 18+ years later, not in the 14 years you arbitrarily decide it should to try to refute this body of science).
Which means that, 14 or 15 years later, some impact on the murder rate should occur. Not having to wait 22 years for the very first impact to occur.
Says you but upon what do you base this claim? I have pointed you to the science behind the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that shows that this drop occurs primarily 18-24 years after abortion is legalized. You just arbitrarily declare in an ipse dixit that it should happen at 14-15 but this is simply not what the data shows. The data (from dozens of states and multiple countries in distinct studies) show that the drop primarily should occur 18-24 years after abortion.
The majority of murders were not committed by people between the ages of 18-24, the chart I posted before makes it clear it was 37.5%.
I didn't say murder, I said crime but either way I misspoke here. It is not the majority, I was wrong to say so and you are right to correct that. However 18-24 are the peak ages for violent crime (again, citing the 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime"
) and that is the fact that I was misstating.
The 18-24 group committed a little more than three times as many murders as the younger group, but once again, when the first generation of kids born when abortion first became available hits 14 or 15 years old, some downward effect on the murder rate should occur.
Your claim that you should see the crime drop 14-15 years after abortion being legalized is just your own arbitrary line you've drawn. The many studies on this show that this effect is most significant at 18-24 years after abortion.
But in any case in many places there was a drop earlier too. And like the authors of this study have said the reason why black homicide temporarily bucked the trend: the crack cocaine epidemic reaching inner cities.
But we don't see this at all.
Who is this 'we"? You are contradicting hundreds of award winning scientists, you should just say that you
refuse to see it and not that this is something that "we" cannot. The science has been out on this for 15 years and is generally accepted (except, of course, among conservative opponents to abortion).
15 years after 1973 is 1988.
18 years after 1973 is 1991. That's when the crime started dropping and that is when it should really start to do so according to the studies on this (again, by multiple people, in multiple states, and in multiple countries).
You arbitrarily demand to see it happening at 15 years after abortion is legal when the body of science makes it clear that it tends to happen 18-24 years after abortion is legal.
If we saw a gradual levelling off of the number of black murder victims 14 or 15 years after abortion was legalized and the number of abortions started to climb, this hypothesis might make sense.
Says you again arbitrarily, contradicting the enormous body of science on the subject that says we should see it primarily 18-24 years after (the peak drop is was 22 years after if I remember the data correctly).
As the main reason for the decline in murders, it does not fit the facts.
According to your own arbitrary rule that despite the science saying it should really start to drop 18-24 years after that it should be earlier. And you also ignore that the scientists have already addressed your exact qualm with the data by saying you need to control against the crack epidemic.
Look, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink so now that I've pointed you at science that has withstood 15 years of conservative attacks there's little more that I can do to convince you and will have to live with failing to do so. The science is clear that crack and abortion are the primary causes of the spike and drop and if you refuse to accept that science in favor of your arbitrary ideas on how it should actually work there's nothing I can do about that.
But I can ask you this yet again as you haven't bothered to address it the last time: What specific policies do you blame Bush for and credit Clinton for when you attribute this to them? Reject the science that points clearly at crack and abortion if you want, but what are you even claiming? If you attribute this to Bush vs Clinton how did that work? Where is the science behind your claim? I've showed you mine, which you rejected out of hand as is your prerogative, but what is your claim that Bush and Clinton are the ones responsible for these numbers based on?