Liberty is liberty. I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman. Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.
I do not discount your moral view. I happen to share it. Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view, but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.
Let me put it this way. I am against the murder of innocents, no matter what wrapper is put on that box.
So, too, is our general opinion in our society as a whole.
Why is the unmitigated slaughter of tens of millions of innocent babies an exception?
Because they are inconvenient? Would that give someone the 'right' to eliminate anyone they found inconvenient? That person moving slowly in the hallway who is infringing on the right to move as quickly as you please?
The person driving ten MPH below the speed limit, hogging the road and blocking traffic?
There is a lot of inconvenience in the world, and at some point, all of us will be an inconvenience to others--it cannot be avoided. Does that give them the right to kill us because we're interfering with their Liberty?
No. What your argument conveniently ignores is that our rights only go so far, that limit being when they start interfering with the Rights of others. Among those self-evident and unalienable Rights, in fact, foremost, is the Right to Life.
I find no inconsistency in my views to preserve the lives of innocents, yet I find inconsistency in views which assert that there is a right to preserve Life on one hand, and take it on another, when in both instances the lives are innocent of any wrongdoing.