When pro-abortion advocates argue in favor allowing babies to be murdered while they’re still in the womb, they use terms like “bodily autonomy” and “a woman’s right to choose.”
Their reasoning goes something like this: Since unborn children are living inside of their mothers’ bodies, it should be up to those mothers to decide if their babies live or not. Unwanted children, meanwhile, are supposedly infringing on their mothers’ “bodily autonomy.”
Now, by that logic, the left should support a woman’s right to carry a firearm. After all, if a woman has the “right” to defend her body from an innocent child, she should be able to defend herself from those who actually want to hurt her.
Funnily enough, the same people who defend abortion are often the ones calling for gun control and looking to infringe on women’s Second Amendment rights.
Logically, it makes no sense. And a gun owner at a CNN town hall on Wednesday night did a great job of highlighting the hypocrisy.
“I’m a volunteer with the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners. I’m a proud female firearm owner,” Theresa Inacker, who was in the audience, said. “And I care too.”
“I think there’s a little bit of a misunderstanding that we don’t care. But we do. And actually we’re against violence. All violence.”
Inacker then proceeded to ask her question.
“My question is, do you believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to defend her own body? And in the manner she chooses? And that the government should not interfere with that decision?” she asked.
Former Philadelphia police commissioner Charles Ramsey, part of the CNN panel, seemed a bit befuddled by the question.
“That’s a little off the topic here. But I do believe in a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “Now when you get into the area about ‘any means she chooses,’ I don’t know what you mean by that. There are laws if you’re talking about deadly force. For an example: You carry a gun or whatever. There are only certain circumstances under which you can actually resort to deadly force.”
“Certainly if you’re assaulted or whatever, you have a right to defend yourself,” he added. “But when you talk about deadly force that’s a little different.”
Cuomo then launched into a somewhat confusing argument attempting to justify both his pro-gun control and pro-abortion stances.
“You’re playing on what we see with reproductive rights. And in each case though, people who are making these impassioned arguments, what’s the concern?” he said.
“The concern is the well-being of the person who winds up being the recipient of the act. Right? When you’re talking about reproductive rights, which obviously isn’t what we’re talking about tonight, but still important,” Cuomo added.
“It’s about ‘What about the fetus? Or what about the baby? When is it a person?’ You’re thinking about who is going to be impacted by the decision that’s made. That’s the same thing here. I have a right to own a gun. I do own a gun. But my right has restrictions on it.”
Of course, liberals are outraged whenever conservative politicians propose restricting a woman’s “right” to an abortion in any way, shape or form, so Cuomo’s argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
But Inacker makes a great point. While I have no idea whether or not she is pro-life, her question still highlighted the liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the “right” to obtain an abortion versus the “right” to own a firearm.
Of course, there’s a simple answer. Women should be able to carry guns because they have the right to defend themselves.
There is no real “right” to abortion, on the other hand, because that horrific practice consists of ending someone else’s life — an innocent baby’s, no less.
Being pro-gun and pro-life is logically consistent.
Being pro-choice and anti-gun, however, is not.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.