If you haven’t already heard this claim, you will: The gun-toting folks are hypocrites, because the very arguments they bandy about in opposing gun control are the exact opposite arguments they use when decrying abortion rights. And the abortion rights people toss about the same slippery slope concerns as the gun rights people. Both groups just need to compromise, find common ground, be reasonable. Yes? No? Maybe?
With the outcry by pro-life groups over the non-coverage of the recent abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell trial, a trend in reasoning why it was not widely reported in the press emerged. They didn’t cover the case for fear that it would erode support for abortion rights. Some folks have likened the fear of exposing the horrors of this case with gun rights advocates’ fears of expanding background checks or any form of gun control. These writers equalize the arguments of gun control opponents and abortion rights groups. They suggest that the extreme views on either side, and lack of willingness to compromise are equivalent. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/06/abortion-rights-community-has-become-the-nra-of-the-left.html) I respectfully, but vehemently disagree. I do not believe a moral equivalency can be drawn between even the “extremists” of these camps.
My argument is based on the outcome and intent. In every case, abortion kills an innocent life. This is far from true of every gun owner. The right to defend oneself and bear arms is an unalienable right which shall not be infringed upon. Every state agreed and it was soundly supported by our citizens with the founding of our country. In contrast, abortion rights were decided upon by 9 judges, in a split decision. The right to abort a baby is hardly an unalienable right. The country was sharply divided, and still is over the abortion issue. 51% of Americans currently describe themselves as pro life.
The outcome of one group is an innocent defenseless life is ended, based on the convenience or needs of self, even if self is in no danger. The outcome of the other group results in killing another only in self defense or to end the murdering of innocent defenseless life. Both have “criminal” elements that are perversions and corruptions. However, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible with the intent of preserving, not taking human life. In stark contrast, every abortion ends a human life.
I understand that not every abortion rights advocate personally wants an abortion herself. I personally have difficulty with this stance. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If the baby inside a womb is human life, then abortion desecrates human life. But if the fetus is not human life, what is it? How can we as a culture compromise on this issue? Gun Rights arguments are based on rights that ultimately protect life and liberty. Abortion Rights arguments are based on rights that every single time destroy life and liberty. To call the arguments of Abortion Right Advocates the “NRA of the left” is to malign and misunderstand the NRA, as well as the premise of gun rights.
I believe there is danger in compromising when the moral stakes are so high. Compromise on gun rights erodes the basic premise of our constitution, which is to control the expansion and power of government, such that we need never fear its infringement on our liberty. (Given the egregious and tyrannical behavior of our administration as of late in the Benghazi issue and the IRS debacle, that fear is clearly well founded.) Compromise on the rights of the unborn suggests that the sanctity of human life is negotiable. In our culture of tolerance, taking a stand with a clear line drawn between right and wrong is exceedingly unpopular. However, if we don’t stand for what is right, I believe we will all fall for what is wrong.
“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”
by Vicky Kaseorg
Vicky Kaseorg is the homeschool mother of three, an author of 7 books, and of a daily inspirational blog at vickykaseorg.blogspot.com
Powered by Facebook Comments