There is an interesting relationship between the pro-life and pro-gun ideologies. On the one hand, pro-life, as the name suggests, stands for the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It is wrong to take an innocent life, and so abortion should not be legal, and it certainly should not be called "healthcare". On the other hand, can we really call ourselves pro-life if we support a man's right to keep and bear arms?
The first problem with this argument is that actually, pro-gun is not anti-life, because literally no pro-gunner would be stupid enough to argue "you're violating my human rights because you won't let me kill this person". That is exactly the argument from the pro-abortion lobby. But the pro-gun argument is the opposite: I have the right to defend my life. It's true that sometimes this results in the death of the attacker, but 1. it doesn't have to, and 2. any damage done to a man in the process of a crime is on his own head. It doesn't matter if he gets fatally shot by his victim, or cuts an artery on the window he broke, it's his own fault.
But another major problem for the abortion lobby is that they have their own hypocrisy problem. For Conservatives, the argument is you shouldn't be able to kill the innocent, but you should be given the best shot possible to defend yourself from the guilty. For Leftists, the argument is we should be able to kill the innocent, but should do what we can to protect the guilty.
Let's take the argument from rape, for example. There are many flaws in this argument, starting with the fact that, since it is a minority reason for abortion anyway, it's a moot point. We'll discuss exceptions when you agree on the rule. But more importantly, we both agree that rape is evil. Your problem is that you have more compassion for the people committing that evil than for the completely innocent children. Yes, rape is despicable, and in my opinion should still carry the death penalty. Rape a woman, off to the gallows with you. Yes, it sucks that rape occasionally results in pregnancy, and we should do everything we can to help victims. But the child didn't do it. Furthermore, most arguments, dare I say all arguments, used to justify killing the child can be used after they are born.
Now, unfortunately, there are people out there who will argue for abortion up to, and even after birth. There are even people who bully pro-lifers who were the result of rape. I remember speaking out in defence of such a victim, and an old school friend had the cheek to message me saying "you're really offending me". Unfortunately, you cannot reason with that kind of psychopath. If you think it's ok to murder a child at all, you have problems. If you think it's ok to view people as lesser beings because their fathers were rapists, you're a reprobate, no better than the rapists themselves. You can't be reasoned with, and this article isn't for you.
But for those with some semblance of humanity, it shouldn't be too hard to convince you that the innocent should not be punished for a rape they didn't commit. Those conceived by rape, in spite of the tragic circumstances of their conception, are no less human than everyone else, and are deserving of the same love and respect as the rest of us. Can we agree on that? Yes, good, now, let's hope we can get some agreement here, too.
If you agree that rape is evil, you should also agree that a woman has the right to protect herself from rape. Please, please, please agree with this. If you don't, again, you're a sicko, please seek psychiatric help, and don't walk the streets again until you're healed. But if you do, congratulations, you're one step closer to being pro-gun.
Now, no one is arguing that the only way to stop a rapist is to shoot them, nor is anyone arguing it is 100% foolproof. But the gun is called "the great equaliser" for a reason. Guns indisputably make the weak equal to the strong. You can put a gun in the hand of a 4 ft 14 year old and she will be able to defend herself against a 7ft bodybuilder, because no amount of muscle can make you bulletproof, and a well trained child can handle a firearm. Of course, I'm not advocating giving guns to unattended kids, but I am saying armed victim vs. any rapist is at least a fair fight. On the flip side, I've seen mug shots of rapists who are covered in scratches, because their victims fought back, but they fought harder.
Perhaps you will disagree with this, but I would prefer a million dead attempted rapists than a single successful rape. I'm pro-gun because I'm anti-rape, not because I'm not pro-life after all. In fact, the end goal of self-defence is not the death of the perpetrator. It is precisely that, self defence. While this can result in the death of the perpetrator (again, this is on their own head), sometimes the mere sight of a weapon is enough to deter a predator. Predators are cowards by nature. They seek weaker victims (and anti-gunners seek to weaken their victims, so let that sink in for a moment). But if they decide to attack anyway, a well-placed bullet or 7 may stop them without killing them. And, as my Krav Maga instructor frequently tells us, when the threat stops, we stop.
It is, therefore, entirely possible to reconcile the pro-life and pro-self defence ideologies. One seeks to protect the innocent from being brutally murdered, the other seeks to help the innocent defend themselves from being brutally murdered, or worse. Easy reconciliation, not so easy to argue against. By contrast, being pro-abortion and anti-gun is inconsistent in one sense because you must arbitrarily assign value to lives. This baby's life is not valuable because its father is a rapist (and of course we must transfer that lack of value over to the 98% of other babies whose mothers want to kill them for non-rape related reasons). But we must ban guns if it can save just one life.
But in another sense, it is entirely consistent to be pro-abortion and anti-gun, because both positions make it inherently easier to harm the innocent. The question we have to ask is, is this the kind of consistency we want? Personally, I say no. I want to live in a world where if you're doing nothing wrong, your chances of suffering harm are drastically reduced. If you are doing something wrong? The one you're trying to do wrong to should be able to stop you, any damage done to you is on your own head, and if you get caught (which, in an ideal world, you will be), you, and you alone, suffer the just consequences, meted out to you by law. The only people who would not want such a world are those who are doing something worthy of punishment, and we don't want those in any position of power or influence over public policy.