Wait a minute...
In short, the argument that it is good to have legal abortion because you abort some fetuses who might otherwise become criminals can also be used to support forced abortions. The fact that we, as a society, find the latter argument repugnant mirrors how repugnant many find the former repugnant.
AFAIK, nobody (not even the authors of Freakonomics) are arguing that it's good to have legal abortion because it reduced crime rates.
The discussion of abortion and crime is in the chapter [link|http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php|Where Have All the Criminals Gone?] (excerpts). They present evidence that it's not increased law enforcement, or tougher sentences, or a stronger economy and lower unemployment, or whatever else that is commonly cited as the reason. Rather, it's greatly correlated with the changes after Roe v. Wade. In short, it's not a tract that advocates abortion as a way to reduce crime. It presents evidence that some of the commonly held explanations for the drop in crime rates don't hold up.
It may be a fine distinction, but I think it's important. To let abortion opponents (like Bennett) twist the results into an argument (for even hypothetical) forced abortion (in an attempt to thereby discredit legal voluntary abortion) strikes me as a travesty.
I still think it's incorrect to stretch evidence from a time of legal voluntary abortion to one of mandatory abortion and claim that the proposition obviously holds.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
