A peripheral thread has been done on this in relation to comments made by William Bennett last year, but it didn't look in depth at the reason for those comments. So given recent threads on crime and gun control, here goes: "does the premise put forward by the authors of freakonomics that Wade vs Roe (i.e legalised Abortion) did more to reduce crime than planned measures (such as increased police numbers, zero tolerance, concealed carry permits etc etc) have any merit?" Now I do understand that I'm bring 2 rather controversial issues together, so in an effort to avoid critical mass and long discussions about rights, pro choice, pro life etc, please focus on the question above. I find the idea is interesting that a demographic trough in populations close to poverty could have had more effect on lowering crime (i.e reducing the criminal population at a national level, as from 1973 unwanted babies went in the bucket early, rather than the care system later) than local initiatives. It also is rather depressing and rather gaian/chaos theory to think that it was an unplanned side effect than an intended policy! so what do y'all think then?