How would being pro-life and pro-family translate into larger government?
I fail to see the connection.
When government gets involved in issues such as abortion...
>>How would being pro-life and pro-family translate into larger government?
I fail to see the connection.<<
That’s really more a dividing than unifying issue - incenting pro-family behavior versus small government.
Its one of the natural divisions and stresses for conservatives. There are others like the line between minding our own business and isolationism.
But I don’t see being pro-life as a divider. I think there is a clear right to privacy. Other conservatives may disagree. But surely we all agree that the right to privacy does not include the right to harm others others, particularly innocents.
Of course, it doesn't.
Pro-life and pro-family policies translate into smaller government. Healthy, confident families tend to rear healthy, confident, law-abiding children. Discipline and prudence is inculcated at the family level thus relieving government of many burdens and external costs. Wise governments follow policies that recognize and build on this truth.
Nations that slaughter their unborn and that adopt policies that weaken the traditional family tend to have much larger and more intrusive governments to counter or neutralize the forces of dependence and lawlessness that such policies loose on society.
Anti-family lawlessness is the lesson of our liberal infested inner cities; anti-family nanny-state dependence is the lesson of the mega-government socialist governments of Europe.
These are lessons lost on fiscal conservatives who foolishly believe that smaller government can be had on the cheap--without regard to the social conservative needs of families.