Many people believe that, if *something* is a good thing - Bible-reading, for example, or libraries - then it is appropriate for government to mandate the activity or compel its funding by the citizens. I do not agree. Even if I agree about the positive value of the *something*, I generally believe it should be conducted and funded voluntarily.
It is on this principle, I believe, that the line is drawn between “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives,” so called. A type of “social conservative,” just as a type of “social liberal,” believes that government should compel and/or fund what he believes is beneficial. The ... “other conservative,” perhaps, such as myself, believes that free citizens should pursue their own goods, in most cases, with their own resources.
An attempt is made to draw the line so that legal abortion is “economically conservative.” However, prohibiting abortion does not cost money, particularly, and it can easily (if not inarguably) be shown to benefit the economy. In addition, it is much more a function of government to prevent harm to individuals and to society than it is to compel “good.”