Republicanism and Liberalism

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body of get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but if you re-read your post you will see that your position derives from your own belief system. Of course there are many degrees of social conservatism, but in the context of Rhyfelwyr's original enquiry about liberal, enlightenment thought, the imposition of other's religious beliefs by the government is hardly reducing government's role.

Pro-choice is the only position for small government to take - ie the procedure is available to those who choose it. It is then religious people's duty to persuade as many as possible not to make the choice to abort. Persuade, not imprison.