You ask us to accept your assurance regarding the sex life of liberals but you nonetheless seek to inject your non-authoritative scriptural interpretation into the decisions they make with their bodies. Jesus did not lead this way nor are we called to.
If we treated our peers like Jesus treated the woman at the well, rather than like the subjects of our moral empire, then the country we pray for would be closer to a reality.
That may be so, but it doesn't change what I believe to be true - that babies are people too and should be treated as such.
> If we treated our peers like Jesus treated the woman at the well, rather than like the subjects of our moral empire, then the country we pray for would be closer to a reality.
I agree with you on that - and I believe it's right to live and speak that way with people who are in need. Doing so doesn't mean not advocating for specific policies and laws based on what I believe to be true -- namely that all people are valuable, including babies.
Check the news again. There are already ideas going as far as "condoms for married couples only".
Also, some "plan B"s mean large doses of the standard contraception pill. You can't ban one without the other.
> It's not about fetuses, it's about sex.
You may have a point, but I could make the same argument in reverse. One could argue the only reason those on the left want to preserve the right to abortion is because they want to have sex divorced from its potential consequences.
> There are endless ways that conservatives dream about restricting our sex lives.
I'm a conservative (at least w.r.t. moral issues), and let me assure you I do not think (much less dream) about the sex lives of liberals.
What I do think, wish, and pray for is a country that is collectively characterized by knowing God, acknowledging him, giving thanks to him, and asking for his help when we need it -- something both the left and the right in Washington are sadly far from.