There are a few dimensions to this but I want to focus on one.
It is not hypocritical to be in favor of laws against activity you engage in.
Humans respond to incentives
Laws are incentives
Murphy is a human.
It would have been hypocritical for him to say laws were unneeded because character was enough to stop abortions. Instead, he is good example of why the laws he proposed would be needed.
I disagree. Not all laws are the same, and not all justifications for laws are the same.
One way of looking at this is the distinction between
malum in se versus
malum prohibitum: things that are intrinsically wrong versus things that are wrong because they are prohibited.
For example, suppose that your tax rate is 20%. If you only pay 18%, that's illegal. But it's
malum prohibitum. The proper functioning of society requires most people to not commit
malum prohibitum crimes, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong about paying 18% instead of 20% taxes. Likewise, if you think the tax rate should be 25% because you think the government needs more funding to pay for some program you want, it's not hypocritical to only pay 20% when that's what the law requires. There's no intrinsic moral value connected to either tax rate, only practical considerations. And you can't achieve the purely practical goals of a higher general tax rate by just paying more yourself.
But the commonly used justifications for prohibiting abortion frame it as
malum in se. It isn't just practical considerations (such as a desired population growth rate, or stimulation for the pediatrics industry, etc) driving that push, but moral ones. And if you think that it's
malum in se, then to do it yourself is indeed hypocritical.
Hypocrisy is a very normal human trait, nothing remarkable at all, but I think this still qualifies.