The Surprising Thing that Liberals and Conservatives Have In Common

May 3, 2018

There may be some hope for political unity between liberals and conservatives. In this day and age, it seems that more than ever, America is divided. It feels like a constant tug-o-war and with every article and counter-article, both sides only seem to dig their heels in a little deeper. Each blog or video causes this very un-fun game to grind to a halt, with neither side at a clear advantage – everyone is angry at everyone else.

However, this isn’t always the case. With all of the talk about school shootings and gun violence in recent times, I began noticing something extraordinary. The rhetoric of those arguing against gun-control rang strangely familiar in my ears. It reminded me of the arguments people use when supporting abortion. It appears that conservatives and liberals share the same basic rhetoric in advocating for the ability to own gun and the ability to have an abortion. Another view is that the arguments against banning guns are eerily similar to those against banning abortion.

I feel that most people understand the basic arguments for and against these issues very well. I will simply provide a summary of the three basic points of the Pro-Gun and Pro-choice arguments. For clarification, by “Pro-gun” I am not implying “Pro-gun violence.”

Arguments against Gun control (Pro-Gun)

The first major Pro-Gun argument against gun control is that it is a right to bear arms. It’s very clearly laid out in the second amendment.
Another Pro-gun argument makes the point that banning guns won’t really solve the problem. This is because those who do want to own guns will just find another way. Even if we banned every gun in America, there would the next day be a black market for them, which would endanger the public even more.
A final Pro-Gun argument (although there are many more) is that guns allow self-preservation and provide security. In a life and death situation, guns allow the opportunity to neutralize the threat to your well-being. While it may come at a cost of another life, your life or the life of your family members is more important.

Arguments for Abortion (Pro-Choice)

The first major Pro-choice argument against banning abortion is that the woman has the right over her body. It’s also a fundamental right that was declared by the Supreme court.
Another Pro-choice argument makes the point that banning abortion won’t really solve the problem. This is because those who do want to have an abortion will just find another way. Even if we banned abortion in America, there would the next day be black market or back-alley operations, which would endanger the public even more.
A final Pro-Choice argument (although there are many more) is that abortion allows self-preservation and provides security. In the event of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, abortion allows the opportunity to neutralize the threat to your well-being. While it may come at a cost of another life, your life or the life of your family members is more important.

Moving beyond just the arguments to the people that support one but not the other, one will find that both have exceptions. The “pro-choice-but-anti-gun” person understandably will allow some people to have guns—FBI, Secret Service, Military, and the police force. Similarly, the “pro-gun-but-anti-choice” person understandably will allow some people to have an abortion—when the pregnancy will undoubtedly kill both child and mother.

If you notice, both Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice advocates use almost identical rhetoric to advance their cause. Each argument is centered around 3 basic points. First, the ability to own a gun or have an abortion is a government-given right, and thus the government should not be able to take it away. Second, trying to restrict guns or abortion will not solve the underlying issue. Attempting to do so will only cause more damage to society. And Third, guns or abortion are actually beneficial for society.

Be Consistent or Give it Up

I understand that both issues are extremely complex, nuanced and have a number of differences–this comparison is very simplistic. But, that doesn’t mean its incorrect. If the basic points of the rhetoric are too similar for comfort, that may be indicative of a deeper similarity between the two positions. On the surface level, one cannot reasonably hold to these distinctions of being both for one position and against the other while maintaining the current rhetoric. For obvious reasons, you cannot deny the arguments of one side, but then use the same arguments to support yours. A more logical option is to be consistent and hold to being both Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice—to be for abortions and for guns. If that is unthinkable to you then you have one option: Give it up. Give up your government-issued-right to own guns. Give up your government-issued-right to an abortion. Excluding some scenarios, imagine if both sides gave up their rights. Imagine if a bi-partisan bill was passed that simultaneously overturned Roe V Wade and the 2nd Amendment. This would be one of the greatest and truly pro-life moves in history, but would you be willing to make that deal?

We are unified in this for the wrong reasons. We have championed our own right to life over the lives of others, and this is intolerable. The blood is in the streets and the blood is on our hands. If we keep arguing this way and for same things, there will only be more innocent blood spilled. Let’s end this.

Brandon Hurlbert

Brandon is currently teaching Old Testament at Durham University where he received his PhD. His primary research interests are on the book of Judges, violence and the Bible, and film. He is also a research associate at the Centre for the Study of Bible and Violence. He went to Biola University and Talbot School of Theology for his B.A and M.A. in Biblical and Theological studies. His passion and his heart is for the Church, with specific focus in integrating academic thought with church life. He can be reached at brandon.m.hurlbert@durham.ac.uk

You might also enjoy…

The Greatest Story Ever Retold with Dr. John Anthony Dunne and Dr. Jeannine Brown (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
March 4, 2026
In this episode we’re joined by Dr. John Anthony Dunne and Dr. Jeannine Brown, New Testament professors at Bethel Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota, to…
Emotion in Early Christianity with Professor Andrew Crislip (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
February 25, 2026
In this episode, we’re joined by Prof. Andrew Crislip, who is Blake Chair in the History of Christianity at Virginia Commonwealth University, and the author…
The Apostle to the Foreskin with Dr. Ryan Collman (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
February 18, 2026
In this episode, we’re joined by Dr. Ryan Collman, who is Associate Supervisor at Westcott House, Cambridge, and tutor in New Testament at the University…
Negotiating Jewishness with Dr. Ruben Bühner (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
February 11, 2026
In this episode, we’re joined by Dr. Ruben Bühner, who is a postdoctoral researcher for New Testament Studies at the University of Zurich and the…
The Hypothesis of the Gospels with Dr. Ian Mills (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
February 4, 2026
In this episode, we’re joined by Dr. Ian Mills, who is Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies at Hamilton College and the author…
A Christian Response to I.C.E. in Minnesota with Pastor Stephanie Williams O’Brien (Podcast)
by John Anthony Dunne
January 28, 2026
In this episode, we’re joined by Pastor Stephanie Williams O’Brien to talk about the realities of what’s happening in Minnesota with the immigration enforcement agency…

2 responses to “The Surprising Thing that Liberals and Conservatives Have In Common”

Adam

May 3, 2018

This is indeed an over simplification of a complex subject. However, it has nothing to do with the nuances. You have failed to understand the basic thoughts and values behind the arguments being made and misrepresented both sides.

The first side would contend that abortion is morally neutral, a legitimate medical procedure which is essential to a woman’s health and well-being without violating the rights of another human being, and should be a private discussion between a woman and her doctor. Guns are tools only designed to kill people, a morally evil action, and therefore serve no legitimate purpose in modern society beyond hunting and recreation, and taking them away from citizens would save lives.

The other side would argue that gun ownership is morally neutral, and is a God-given right, and a net social good, that gun ownership is essential to protecting liberty and self-defense. Yet would hold that abortion is a moral evil, taking of an innocent human life and is inexcusable, even in the case of rape and incest, it is a best a murder for selfish means, and at worst a genocidal act to eliminate those our society has deemed unworthy of life.

Firstly, the comparison made in this article assumes that neither position is correct, in fact it assumes that both abortion and owning a gun are morally wrong and both sides are arguing that the government should grant them the right to do those things as an exercise of personal freedom. Neither side would agree with that.

This comparison also equates gun ownership with taking a life, which is a (biased) slippery-slope fallacy. Or inversely, it equates abortion with taking a life, which is the core disagreement in the abortion discussion.

The only common argument between these two topics is that prohibition creates a black market. Which I think is something we should all be able to agree on. However, based on what you believe about the moral claims being made, prohibition and dealing with a black market may be worthwhile pursuit for the sake of justice.

Reply
1. Brandon Hurlbert
  
  May 3, 2018
  
  Adam,
  
  Thank you for your comment. I understand that this is an oversimplification and that there are indeed differences in both the rhetoric and values behind each issue’s arguments. I tried to limit the differences between each side’s views of the other to what they had in common, i.e. they both hold exceptions and neither side see a full or total ban on either as an option.
  
  I also focused on the major secular arguments that are shared by both. While I know that many conservatives are also Christian, a major argument that is shared across religious lines is that the right to own guns is given by the state (2nd Amendment). This limits the conversation to the secular realm, but I do agree that Christians must continue to discuss how the Bible’s wisdom and instruction apply to gun ownership and violence.
  
  With such limited space, I could not address the nuance that comes with gun ownership. To clarify, I do not think that owning a gun is morally wrong. I myself grew up shooting guns with my father, and I cherish those memories. However, in light of the shocking amount of gun violence that our country has experience in recent years, this right to bear arms is something I would gladly relinquish if it merited even the slightest chance of saving lives.
  
  I also understand that both sides see themselves being morally right. I merely attempted to show that they defend this by using similar rhetoric, which should be of some concern to us. If we really believe that abortion is evil, then we must reevaluate our own stances that are defended using the same rhetoric.
  
  Finally, I hope we can agree that all death is evil. Humans are made in the image of God and deserve respect and love. Regardless of their actions, reconciliation is always preferable to killing. Even in what may be considered justified killing in the threat of the loss of life, reconciliation, peace, and mercy should always be our go-to response as Christians.
  
  Reply