Many conservatives oppose abortion because they say that every life is sacred. They say, “It’s a child, not a choice.” Given the phenomenal track record of public health care when it comes to infants, it is surprising that many of these same conservatives oppose public health care.

Abortion opponents don’t believe in absolute individual rights (virtually no one does), and, therefore, they are content to allow the government into the situation. This is done to ensure the future life of the child. It stands to reason, then, that abortion opponents should support public health care in order to be logically and morally consistent.

But before making that decision, we should look at the facts to confirm that a public health care system would indeed be better for infants. In this case, it would be most appropriate to compare the United States, with its primarily private health care system, to other countries in the Group of Eight, or G8.

The G8 is composed of some of the most politically powerful industrialized nations in the world, and, with the exception of Russia, they are also the most economically powerful. Its members are the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Since the well-being of infants is the issue at stake, our key focus must be infant mortality rates. Unfortunately for families, private health care systems are plagued by high infant mortality rates.

Pop quiz: Does Third World Cuba, with its public health care system, have a lower rate of infant mortality than the United States? Answer: Yes it does. OK — I cheated. I used a Third World nation rather than one from the G8. The point, however, is that even poor countries like Cuba, with a per-capita GDP of $2,900, can rival the United States, which has a per-capita GDP of $37,800. Sometimes quality health care only requires creativity and determination.

With the exception of the United States and Russia, whose public health care system is largely padded by private expenditure, all G8 nations have genuinely public health care. Incidentally, only Russia has a higher rate of infant mortality than the U.S., which shows that the most privatized systems have the highest rates of infant mortality.

Despite what some say about Canadian health care, its infant mortality rate is 4.82 deaths per 1,000 live births — substantially lower than ours of 6.63 deaths per 1,000 live births. Despite the French love for cigarettes, they manage to keep infant mortality at 4.31 deaths per 1,000 live births. I doubt that it’s the nicotine. The French have a single payer system that uses choice of private medical service, which allows for increased service at cost.

Although France beats us hands down, Japan is even better. Japan’s infant mortality rate is lowest in the G8 at 3.28 deaths per 1,000 live births. But even that rate is substantially higher than Sweden, at 2.77 deaths per 1,000 live births.

If the United States instituted a public health care system, we could lower our rate of infant mortality to 4.00 deaths per 1,000 live births. That improvement would end up saving the lives of roughly 11,000 infants every year.

This figure is roughly three times the number (2,500-5,000) of estimated D&X abortions, better known as “partial birth” abortions, performed each year. Three times. Abortion opponents could do a lot more for supporting infants by also supporting public health care.

It is logically and morally consistent. Abortion opponents should either drop their opposition or adopt public health care into their values.

They can’t have it both ways.