Also, going back to the subject:
a) Nether I, nor Mike, nor people behind the study ever mentioned the race or ethnicity.
b) I have no idea how eugenics came to play here.

Svetlana, to me anyone following any specific doctrine is a nut :).
But that's not the point.. the point it ( in less offensive terms ).
religious fundamentalists are against any abortions and hence reject studies like this.

2. going back to the topic..it's very wrong and immoral to look atpotential life as a criminal and their effect on the society..I believeSpartans would damn babies with birthdefects, Chinese still have forcedabortions - is/was it good for their societies?...probably yes...is itmoral?...just because we CAN scrape the embyo/fetus from the mother'suterus and benefit from it, doesn't make it right...just like newborn can't survive without us taking care of them, unborn babies can't survive withiout mother's womb...

3. While it's hard to argue with the fact that legalized abortions hasbeen ONE (not only) factor contributing to the drop in crime int he90s, you have to look at the factors that contributed to the rise incrime since the mid60s (and it never did drop to the level prior to60s)...my argument is the most contributing factor in the huge crimerise has been the decline in morals - unmarried women having kids/multiple kids.lack of fathers/supporting this kind of life style by government programs, drug use, etc...

name one religious liberal nut you know, PLEASE!!!
Not one but many:
***********.rawstory.com/exclusives/religious_liberals_042305.htm

Not one but many:
***********.rawstory.com/exclusives/religious_liberals_042305.htm
this is totally off topic...but just because someone calls themselves religious and then supports everything that religion teaches against...I am sorry then I am Buddha...

it's very wrong and immoral to look at potential life as a criminal and their effect on the society
and this is why you are a religious nut. Whose of is who are not crazy are able to look at data as just data, without injecting morality into it.

Ira, there is a difference between experimentation and just looking at data without injecting morality.
People who conducted the study did not have an agenda, but were just looking at regression analysis.

and this is why you are a religious nut. Whose of is who are not crazyare able to look at data as just data, without injecting morality intoit.
well, I thought you didn't want to be called commie names...let's not start again!...many not religous people will tell you that morality does play a role in determining if right and wrong...if we only used numbers/data, we would not be saving people without means (it's cheaper, right?)...or why not clone people if the data will show it's so beneficial?.........there is such thing as ethics whether you like it or not.......
I hope you are making money on this topic.....;-)

********pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
btw, here is a newer study looking at all he factors that have contributed to the drop in crime rate...
My suggestion to the further crime reduction is
1. Re-evalute fitness of many parents and promote adoption of kids whose parents are not capable of raising them (heavy drug-users, unemployed, etc)..........
2. Limit government aid to, say, one year, one kid....so it doesn't encourage having additional kids in a not "suited for kids" environment..........