The title of George Lakoff's book, of course, in which he tries, with mixed results, to explain how the concept of freedom means something different to Conservatives and Liberals.

You've provided a very good illustration of Conservative freedom: A potential freedom which good people are well-advised to not exercize. When people actually exercize their freedom, they won't do it "right" and the exercize of freedom leads to bad things.

There are other opinions, of course. Chief among these is the principle that freedom must be exercized to be made real and to be made permanent, lest it be smothered by pressure from the state and from social pressure.

The constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed all sorts of freedoms, but in reality the State violently discouraged the exercize of any of these freedoms. Were the Soviet people truly free when their freedom was only theoretical?

For that matter, the Magna Carta spelled out many theoretical freedoms, but America's Founders demanded genuine freedom; paper freedom was not by any means good enough. They wanted to exercize freedom, not put it on a shelf like an untouchable knick-knack to be admired from afar.

Conservatives approach the abortion debate as if they subconsciously believe the old saw that that which is not forbidden is compulsory, and that if individuals have a choice in the matter, they will all feel compelled to choose abortion. Utter nonsense, of course, but it reflects the deep thread of authoritarianism in the Conservative mind. Free choice is an uncomfortable concept when you believe that the exercize of freedom can lead only to disaster; better to have The Law do the deciding for you.

The truth is that Conservatives are and have always been free to restrict themselves to a narrow subset of freedom. There's no need to try to restrict the freedom of other people so that you won't feel so threatened. It's none of your business how other people exercize their freedom.