The difference between Liberals and social conservatives

By Libby

Due to unforseen developments, I'm late in getting back to this but I did want to respond to Michael's latest post on American liberalism. In responding to my reply to his original post he, as always, makes some good points but I think he also misinterprets mine.

For one thing I would dispute that Western ruling values are rooted solely in Christian theology. I don't know of any religion that condones lying, stealing and cheating. Further, I don't deny morality and religion are intertwined. By definition they have to be, but acceptable state involvement can't be based on religious grounds. It's not whether rules are acceptable to both the religious or secularists. Religious rules shouldn't be a consideration at all.

The moral line should be drawn in terms of public safety and the common good, without any regard whatsoever to religious beliefs and frankly whether or not religious persons would disagree isn't material. In fact that's the problem. Social conservatives want to dictate other's personal non-infringing behavior based on their religious beliefs. If that's not the definition of a theocracy, then perhaps he could tell me what is.

Which of course leaves us to define non-infringing behavior, which inevitably leads to abortion. Michael writes:

However, in the case of abortion, Libby believes that no other person is harmed because she does not consider the fetus to be a human being. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, what then? Doesn’t that drastically alter the situation? In that case one does hurt another human being, in this case even an innocent child who has no say whatsoever in whether he (or she) should live or die.

Leaving aside that I didn't make any statement on whether or not life begins at conception or birth, the point is until that fetus develops into a fully realized human being and is still being carried in a woman's body, it belongs to the woman, not to the state. Whether or not she carries that child to term doesn't infringe on the public safety and calling it murder because of one's personal belief in when life begins, is effectively seeking to impose a specific religious value into public life.

For the record, I'm anti-abortion but I'm very much pro-choice. I don't want anyone to have to terminate a pregnancy but it's none of my business or anyone else's if they do. And as for the moral basis of the religious right's meddling in this choice, if it's really about the moral value of protecting innocent lives then why aren't the anti-choicers lining up to oppose the occupation? Hundreds of innocent children and pregnant women are dying in Iraq without having a say in whether they should live or die. And I ask again why aren't they fighting to increase funding for social programs that protect the life of children born into poverty? They didn't have a choice either and children do die every day in this country from lack of proper nutrition and medical care.

Is it more moral to allow a woman freedom to decide whether to complete a pregnancy based on her personal circumstances, or to force her to give birth to child that she knows she can't properly care for? There are indeed no easy answers but it seems to me that it's better to err on the side of free choice rather than coercion based on a religious belief.

Finally, I think Michael is wrong in saying that liberals claim morality has no place in government. Frankly I've never heard anyone say that and as Pamela pointed out, morals aren't defined by political ideology. Liberals have morals and live by them. I'd say the real difference between liberals and social conservatives is that liberals don't seek to impose their personal moral code on anyone else beyond the interests of the common good, while social conservatives seek to rewrite the rulebook so that everyone is compelled to live by theirs.