For years I have been infuriating my socially conservative friends by pointing out that it is hypocritical to be "pro-life" and not have at least adopted child because actions speak louder than words.
But I recently became more familiar with the work of Economist Stephen Levitt and his theory that there is no social policy that does more to drive down the violent crime than unfettered access to abortion on demand. He also points out that the same policy also deals with poverty in general; the violent thugs are aborted before they have a chance to become thugs and the teenage girls they would impregnate are aborted before they become single teenage mothers on welfare.
Now for those of you who need me to connect all the dots here goes. If it is true that nothing provides more "bang for the buck" than unfettered access to abortion when addressing poverty and crime issues it is hypocritical to be both a fiscal and social conservative unless one is actively involved (read volunteering) in addressing crime and poverty.
This is not an endorsement of abortion, as Levitt points out, but merely a factual conclusion drawn from an academic study of the data. In other words, regardless of how offensive you may find it, if what he says is correct, this is no less a revolting fact than it be if your son grew up to be a pimp or your daughter a prostitute. A fact, an unpleasant one, but a fact nonetheless.
So the question is what do I do with this information now, because to me, if his conclusion is correct it demands action and dissemination regardless of how offensive it is to people. A person is a hypocrite if they demand the government find the cheapest solution possible to the issues of poverty and crime and while demanding that abortion be regulated because those two objectives are at cross purposes; or to put it more bluntly; you are a hypocrite if you are pro-life and want the government to lower taxes and do more with less.