Levitt and Dubner wrote down a number of interesting theories about lots of things, but I think they overthought this one.
The crime rate rose and dropped pretty neatly along with the proportion of young men in society. The median age is much higher now than it was 30 years ago. Crime, especially violent crime, is a young man's game.
Perhaps they are right and roe vs wade was one of the factors in raising the median age, but it seems that people today want smaller families, and have more control over this than a generation ago. You can't assume that if a woman has an abortion, a miscarriage and two kids over her lifetime, she would have had four children if it hadn't been for the abortion and the miscarriage.
While I've been generally convined Freakonomics is to be considered suspect on this, the argument you present in the last paragraph doesn't counter it: the Freakonomics point was that absent abortion, people were forced into having children earlier when they were not ready to support them fiscally or emotively due to their situation, whereas with control of their fertility they can choose when they are best prepared and most desired them.
My point was that a society dominated by young men is going to have more crime than a society with a median near middle age - that smaller families made us calmer. They didn't convince me that younger parents are worse than older ones.
The crime rate rose and dropped pretty neatly along with the proportion of young men in society. The median age is much higher now than it was 30 years ago. Crime, especially violent crime, is a young man's game.
Perhaps they are right and roe vs wade was one of the factors in raising the median age, but it seems that people today want smaller families, and have more control over this than a generation ago. You can't assume that if a woman has an abortion, a miscarriage and two kids over her lifetime, she would have had four children if it hadn't been for the abortion and the miscarriage.