 Quote: |
Originally Posted by mandiejo Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan I don't see a problem.
The problem was crime. Crime went down. Levitt made a hypothesis about why crime went down. Levitt proved his hypothesis.
Abortion reduces crime. There is no "problem" in his report. I don't really understand what you want him to change. It's up to politicians to use his data as they will.
He doesn't have an agenda. He isn't for or against abortion. He's just stating facts. He provides an alternate solution to using abortion, which is improving family life in some way for the poor. Economists don't impliment or legislate, they only observe and experiment. | i was talking about the "provides an alternate solution" thing. all he says is that we should improve family life, but is that a) the only viable option, and b) actually a viable option considering it would be almost impossible to ensure improved conditions? suggestions don't really get things done, obviously. |
A) Only viable option? No.
But are other options EXCLUSIONARY whereby they could not be used in conjunction with legalized abortion?
If we can do BOTH alpha and beta to improve family life, then why shouldn't we use both if possible?
B) "ensure improved conditions"?
I think the point is that, overall in ACTUAL practice, it DOES improve conditions.
Are the improved conditions "ensured"? No.
But OVERALL are the conditions improved? Yes.
The fact that they aren't ensured isn't that important in my perspective. |