CAVEAT: If the SSPX is regularised, it is hardly likely to be a harmonious  process. You only have to have a cursory glance at the postings of SSPX message boards - and even the theories of some of the SSPX Bishops - to see that their prolonged disobedience has made many of them deranged and prone to conspiracy theories. 

But the same can be said for many of the left-liberal Catholic intelligentsia, of course. 

We have a community of Dominican sisters who belong to the SSPX in our region. They stick out like a sore thumb because they wear religious habits instead of pantsuits.

It's important to note that the SSPX isn't actually a schism. Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions in consecrating the successor bishops was schismatic, but that is not the same thing as the group actually being in schism as a group. Undoubtedly, the society lacks canonical status, however.

If I had to bet, I would say that SSPX will be regularised as a personal prelature under Bishop Fellay. Some, maybe most, of the society will follow him but a sizeable faction, including Bishop Williamson, will go sedevacantist.

This may or may not work out well. It could be a real boon for Catholicism in the Church's eldest daughter - France. I have no source or figures for this but as I understand it a sizeable proportion of mass attendees in France are traditionalists, and so are maybe a third of French seminarians .

Conservatives and libertarians are animated by very different first principles. Libertarians elevate personal liberty as the paramount virtue, supreme above all others. Very simple and you can see the attraction to it. Libertarianism is therefore an ideology like Marxism or feminism - an all encompassing worldview.

Conservatism is more a disposition than a true ideology and understanding conservative thought can be taxing. So far as it has an animating principle, it is a recognition of the imperfectibility of man and an attendant fear of unintended consequences. Economic and personal freedom is preferable not as much for its own sake, but because the alternatives are worse.
Another imperfect way of looking at it is that libertarians see how markets left to their own devices produce efficient results. They conclude that moral relativism is the functional equivalent of that efficiency. Conservatives, on the other hand, see inherited customs and norms as being the equivalent to market efficiency in the social sphere.

Of course, ranged against collectivists, conservatives and libertarians can be co-belligerents. For the foreseable future, that should be enough.

It's one thing to take take medication to cure you of an illness and quite another to artificially prevent conception.  For starters, pregnancy is not a disease.

I didn't know there were still Catholics who thought that the Church teaches that enjoying sex was sinful. It's about the means and not the ends - NFP is permissable because it is natural - using our bodies in the way they were designed. Artificial contraception is sinful because it is artificial - a mechanical or chemical alteration to our bodies performed for the express purpose of unnaturally ripping away one purpose of coitus from the other.

When my now wife and I were going through marriage prep it was explained to us that the difference between artificial contraception and NFP is a matter of means and not ends. It is not wrong to want to space out your children but it is wrong to use improper means.

There is a huge moral difference between my wife and Icoming together in a conjugal act when my wife's fertility is low and my inserting some artificial contraption (or her disfiguring her own body through sterilisation) to frustrate the natural purpose of congress.

After all, as my wife cannot conceive during certain times of her cycle, we have no intention of actively frustrating the purposes of congress because we cannot intend something which cannot happen. It does not interrupt the act through artificial means.

Put it this way - NFP is achieved by abstaining from coitus during my wife's fertile period. Artificial contraception is achieved by interrupting or sterilising the act. That's not the same thing.

You need two independent consultants to agree that an abortion is necessary for medical reasons and those consultants are monitored by an abortion supervisory board. Applications are seldom turned down, however, because the mental health clause is interpreted so liberally.

Some groups recently sought a judicial declaration against the supervisory committee's laxness and the High Court found: "reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants".

It's not clear what the implications of the ruling will be, though. 

How? Through a human life amendment? Why would it bother you that they want that? Do you feel Article V is unconstitutional?

Oh I couldn't agree more. Coercing Virtue is also a must-read.

Oh it's not that controversial because it is such a taboo subject and NZ is a mostly irreligious society.

Theoretically the law is much more restrictive than in the US, only medical abortion (including mental health) is available and only in the first 20 weeks. 

Quite right, if you set aside the tortured interpretation of Roe &c.

Well, I guess the counter to that is that the constitution has been held by the Supreme Court to not be silent on the matter via the so-called right to privacy.

AND, if I were arguing for the other side I would also rely on the common law principle "everything which is not forbidden is allowed".

That's fine Michael, but those who believe that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is the greatest evil are hardly likely to be persuaded or assuaged by analogy to the unborn as an unwanted parasite.

I think that hits really close. Would you agree it all boils down to Sowell's 'tragic vision' - the imperfectability of human nature?

Another difference between 'conservatives' and 'classical liberals' is that the latter have a more theoretical bent.

Where classical liberals might be tolerant of the 'old ways'  on the grounds of individual freedom, conservatives see wisdom and virtue in adhering to them.

The people, of course, are deeply conservative. They don't have time for theories and have an innate respect for established traditions and institutions like the Church.

Fine. But you can see that other people, with good reason, believe otherwise. Granting that - and given the natural revulsion humans have towards homicide - don't you think you should cut people a little slack?