I’m glad we agree 
You just did. 
The baby’s rights are trumped by the mothers, if she so chooses. I trust mothers to make the right decisions about their bodies.
Given the large number who drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other injurious behavior while pregnant, I’m at a loss to understand your trust.
But be that as it may, it isn’t the mother’s body we’re talking about.
Mine, of course. Because they’re the right ones.
It’s what I’m talking about.
I think many have given options that are helpful, but I would say that one should define what they mean by conservative to really get to the reason. Political conservatives are different that economical and religious/Christian conservatives. As a Christian conservative, the sanctity of life as defined in the Bible is the reason that I am pro-life.
I remember when I was young and first learning the difference between “conservatives” and “liberals”.
I quickly identified with conservatives. They err on the side of freedom. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Liberals want to control everyone. A larger, more powerful government? Who could look at our system and think that’s what we need?
Then I learned that abortion was switched. I though for sure the adult explaining this to me was incorrect. How could conservatives be on the wrong side of this one? Why would they want to control what people could choose to do, especially something so personal? Why would liberals, who want to control everything be on the right side of this issue?
It still surprises me to this day. Both sides are going against type on abortion.
This may be shocking… but whoever taught you about the difference between “conservatives” and “liberals” was wrong.
Prove me wrong. Elect some democrats that actually cut spending and cut taxes. Reduce regulations. Simplify the tax code.
I’m not with the Republicans on the social issues. So there’s nothing stopping me and millions more libertarian types, Tea Party types and fiscal conservatives who might look at Democrats differently if you did this.
You could get us to switch over. But you’ll never do it. It’s not in the nature of Liberals. They always want to grow the government. Every election in my lifetime the choice is clear. I vote with the side who will help take the government boot off my neck, not the one that wants to step down harder.
Those are policy issues. I’m saying that you’re wrong about “liberals want to control everyone”. That’s just silliness akin to “conservatives are fascists”.
I consider myself a “fiscal conservative”, it’s just that the term seems to mean different things to different people. As an example – when there’s a large deficit, and when taxes are not extremely high, then I think raising taxes can be the fiscally conservative policy.
This is a misunderstanding of what liberals want. I’m not sure you’re actually interested in learning how real world liberals think, though, as opposed to fantasy-world liberals who want government boots on everyone’s necks. If you are, why not start a thread, and ask liberals to explain their views and thinking on various issues?
The thing is, we disagree on these things. With the sequester, we proved that cutting spending isn’t easy to do. If identifying and cutting wasteful spending was easy, we would have already done so. There is no evidence that tax rates are too high, indeed they were higher under Saint Ronald of Reagan. Cut regulations sounds so nice until you get into details. Which specific ones had you in mind. And simplifying the tax code always seems to be pushed by those that would benefit from it. Most of us like our deductions.
Yes, they are policy issues. They are policy issues that I picked because they are directly related to government control over people. Regulations are good. We need regulations. Taxes are also necessary. However, we as a country have gone completely overboard on both fronts. There’s too much government interference in our daily lives. Too many regulations on what people and businesses can do. Too high taxes on nearly everything.
A simple way to summarize this is “control everyone”.
It’s a bit hyperbolic, but I think you’re overstating it by comparing my statement to that.
You’re in favor of raising taxes as long as they aren’t “extremely high” and there is a deficit? You should rethink considering yourself a fiscal conservative.
Words mean things.
Can I ask: What’s extremely high? The US isn’t now? How about NYC? Is there any country that has “extremely high” taxes that you would consider lowering them?
You say that, but you also say that you want taxes “extremely high” in the same post. You are proving my point true in your own response.
Why do you think I’m here? That’s basically every thread on this board. Haven’t you noticed?
I know. Thanks for being honest about it. It’s a good reminder to keep voting the way I do.
I won’t refute the rest of your points item by item, but you’re wrong about all of them.
This is an extremely bad way to summarize this.
I strongly disagree – both statements are equally absurd, and have equal basis in reality.
Often, words mean different things to different people.
Taxes in Denmark are higher than I think is necessary. Taxes (federal) in the US are quite low, especially for high incomes. Taxes in NYC are high, but not too high, in my opinion.
You misunderstand what I wrote.
Then I’m surprised you understand so little about what real-world liberals actually want. It’s like your view of liberals is straight from FreeRepublic.com.
You don’t think the taxes in NYC are high enough? I understand you perfectly.
Here’s my original statement.
I quickly identified with conservatives. They err on the side of freedom. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Liberals want to control everyone. A larger, more powerful government? Who could look at our system and think that’s what we need?
How about I try again, and remove the hyperbole:
I quickly identified with conservatives. They err on the side of freedom. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Liberals tend to favor higher taxes and more regulations. A larger, more powerful government? Who could look at our system and think that’s what we need?
Still disagree?
Huh? When did I say they’re not high enough?
I disagree that conservatives always or usually “err on the side of freedom” (though this is not really hyperbole – it’s more just branding), and there’s a whole lot more than just higher taxes and more regulations to liberals (and many liberals even disagree on those issues), but that’s a much more reasonable way to put it.
And…a free society allows people to make individual choices regarding certain moral issues.
So we come back to the “meta” argument. Your morals require you to compel others to do things they don’t want to do. Our morals allow people to act with individual choice and freedom.
(And…pawn to queen’s bishop three…you’re going to say, “Should we have the right to go out and kill people?” And…bishop to king’s rook five…I’m going to say that the comparison is invalid, as there is universal social acceptance about conventional murder, but that the abortion issue is in a highly disputed state and there is no consensus. And the game goes on, into a prolonged and unpleasant stalemate.)
I’m for a ‘larger, more powerful government’ across the board, and I more often than not react negatively to people blathering about “Freedom!” whether it be economic, political or sexual, so I don’t think I’m guilty of any inconcistencies here.
Not about killing kids.