Conservatives and individual liberty

It's true that they technically can, but if the ideology behind it is not necessarily a free economy but individual freedom, meaning that the state should not interfere in the life of the individual, then they are inconsistent in saying that the state should ban pornography and same-sex marriage. In other words, if the consideration is only a free economy and that is what is good for the economy, I understand. But in my opinion, the ideology on which the industry is based is individual freedom, of course I could be wrong, which is why I asked you

I should also have been more precise and not said conservatives, but right-wingers, although there is usually an overlap.

In your assessment, there is a contradiction here. But contradictions in others arise from their perspective, not from your assessments. We can talk about individual freedom in the economic sphere, not in the value sphere.

Israeli – As much as you claim inconsistency among right-wingers, why wouldn't you claim the same about leftists, who cry out against ideological coercion when it comes to religious values, but advocate such coercion when it comes to secular values (gender equality, high taxation, scientific education, etc.)?

Everyone believes in the coercion of values that are necessary for the existence of society, and freedom from the coercion of values that are not important to it. The dispute is which are the necessary values.

(By the way, the abortion example is bad. Opponents believe that it is murder, and therefore the woman is not deciding about her own body but about someone else's body. I assume that you also agree that there should be a prohibition on murdering another person, except that you believe that it is not a person at all.
The same-sex marriage example is also bad, because the debate is not whether to prevent them from living together but whether society will define it as marriage. It certainly makes sense that someone who believes that it is inappropriate to define same-sex relationships as marriage would vote against such a definition, just as supporters would vote against giving this definition to something that does not meet the criteria in their opinion, such as a business partnership.)

Moshe – The very fact that there are a lot of people who claim that it is not murder, and the very fact that the halakha permits abortion in many circumstances, and even Miki admits that in the case of rape, it can be lenient, indicates that it is far from murder and it is not entirely clear, so as far as I am concerned it is not valid (what is more, science is skeptical about the feelings and sensations that a fetus has in general). Moreover, according to this logic, a vegetarian who believes that meat is murder, he will be able to enact a law that prohibits eating meat. Does that sound normal to you?
And regarding same-sex marriage, in Israel anyone who does not marry according to the law of Moses is not considered married, does that mean that such a thing is not considered marriage, after all, in any sane place in the world they would treat it as marriage for all intents and purposes?
Regarding gender equality, I argue that there should be equal opportunities, meaning that universities should not reject a woman because she is a woman and not because of admission requirements. Regarding workplaces, I definitely think that the employer should have the right to determine the criteria and the salary.
In general, I support the inclusion of social phenomena as long as they are within the bounds of reason, unlike conservatives who try to impose all their liberal agendas on us, as a liberal I have no problem if a woman decides not to have an abortion, or a couple decides to marry according to the religion of Moses or the religion of Jesus, and for my part they even do not recognize other marriages. But I simply argue that the state should not impose values, that's all. Except of course universal values such as murder, theft, etc. where there is a consensus between liberals and conservatives

And regarding scientific education, in the religious school I attended, which was funded by the state, of course, we didn't learn any evolution or any big bang.

Of course, regarding policies such as the release of kidnapped children, where it is impossible to accommodate both opinions, a decision must be made, either they are released or they are not. I am simply referring to phenomena such as marriage and even education, where I completely agree that autonomy should be given to everyone. By the way, if it is so urgent, it is even possible to make the state not fund abortions, but still provide the option.

Regarding abortion, I am not discussing the question of what the correct position is on the subject, but only pointing out the fact that opponents of abortion claim that it is an independent body and not a part of a woman's body, and therefore government intervention in this is similar to any intervention to prevent a person from harming another.
Indeed, if a vegetarian believes that it is forbidden to harm animals for the purpose of eating, he should vote in favor of government intervention to prevent this harm.

Regarding marriage, the very fact that the state defines marriage is government intervention in the matter. The question is what is defined as marriage, and therefore it is not appropriate to discuss coercion here. And if it is decided that a business partnership is not defined as marriage, is there coercion here against a business partnership?
From my point of view, government intervention in the institution of marriage should be abolished altogether and treated as any other legal contract. But to the extent that there is such intervention, it makes sense for people to express an opinion on what is defined as marriage and what is not.

Regarding the imposition of liberal values, if you support forcing an institution to provide equal opportunities to women or any other population, then you believe in imposing the values of equality on people who do not advocate it. The same goes if you believe in progressive taxation aimed at achieving a certain economic equality. Government education in schools also forces the study of certain subjects (even if not evolution specifically) on people who are interested in studying other subjects.

In short, I am personally in favor of reducing government intervention to a minimum and giving autonomy to individuals and various publics. But to the extent that they are required to impose it, liberals are no less coercive than conservatives - they just impose other values. (For example, in the USA, where those who wave individual freedoms are actually the conservatives who rebel against liberal coercion...)