Paquin's Ionic Column - Gun Ownership And Abortion

Here is another article I posted on my column. Here is the link, but there is a copy below. More posts unique to this blog are coming soon.


Pro-Abortion And Anti-Gun-Ownership Incompatible

It is ridiculous that the Supreme Court had to decide on the constitutionality of hand gun ownership bans in District of Columbia v. Heller. However, it is more ridiculous that those opposed to gun ownership usually do not oppose abortion. Abortion and gun ownership both concern man’s natural right to life. It is logically inconsistent to support one and oppose the other.

Both gun ownership and abortion can be defended without the Constitution. Only Truth and the objective morality that follows are necessary.

First, gun ownership is not an initiation of force. A man that purchases and owns a gun does not violate others’ natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. However, if a gun owner were to shoot an innocent person, the gun owner would be initiating force. In this scenario, the government may use force against the gun owner, but the government’s use of force is completely unrelated to owning a gun.

Obviously, the gun was used to initiate force, but ownership is not injuring, murdering, robbing, or threatening other men. The acts of pointing and shooting guns at innocent men are initiations of force; the act of owning guns is not. For example, if a man uses a computer to bludgeon someone to death, owning the computer is not the initiation of force, bludgeoning someone with it is.

Furthermore, since owning a gun does not initiate force, it is vicious for the government to ban guns. Enforcing a gun ban requires the government to use force against individuals for owning guns. Since gun ownership does not initiate force, the government cannot use defense force because no natural rights are being violated. Consequently, it is the government that initiates force, violating gun owners’ natural rights.

This is not to say that man has a natural right to own guns, but man has a natural right to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. A gun owner has chosen to own a gun, he is happy owning a gun, and the gun has been purchased with his money earned through his personal labor, making the gun his and no one else’s. Banning guns causes the government to violate those three natural rights, which makes the government vicious for its enforcement and contradiction of its own purpose.

Second, abortion is not an initiation of force. Abortion involves killing a fetus not a human. The difference is that man is characterized by reason, independence, and individuality. A being must have all three qualities to be man. A fetus has only one of these characteristics. It has no reason; it cannot distinguish between virtue and vice. It is not independent; it is attached to another being, relying on its host for survival. However, it is an individual; no other fetus or being is identical to it. Essentially, a fetus is a parasite that can become man. However, the potential to become man indicates that it is presently not man; therefore, it posses no natural rights. Thus, by killing a fetus no natural rights are violated, no force is initiated.

Furthermore, aborting a fetus exercises a pregnant woman’s natural right to life. Actually, both aborting and birthing exercise a woman’s natural right to life. In the latter case, a woman decides to utilize her life to produce another life. In the former case, she decides to stop utilizing her life to produce another.

Thus, if a woman’s right to life includes the choice to use her life to reproduce or not, her right to life must also allow her to preserve her own life. Choosing to birth or abort is a woman’s choice as to how she wants to use and live her life. Defending herself from an attacker is a woman’s choice to preserve her own life. Obviously, a gun is not necessary for defense, but it is certainly much easier to use than fists, rocks, knives, nunchucks, etc. Therefore, those who are in favor of abortion but against gun ownership believe that a woman may choose how she wants to use and live her life, but they do not believe she may preserve her life, defending it from attack. One cannot choose how to live one’s life if he cannot defend it.

This does not solely apply to females. The natural right to life is the same for all individuals. Since individuals may choose how to use and live their lives, they must be allowed to defend it, and easily. Defense is, of course, the essential purpose of guns. They are for protecting one’s natural rights, not violating others’, though some will use them for murder, armed robbery, etc. The government is the same. The government is for protecting people’s natural rights not violating them, though it often does murder, steal, etc. Therefore, banning gun ownership is not only an initiation of force, a logical inconsistency with those who support abortion, but also a ban on defending one’s natural rights.