A previous post has been getting some pretty intense debate going between some posters, and I felt, given the assumptions being traded, that I should clarify here.
Steve - it is indeed unfortunate that our language has become so imprecise. I would probably be called a "classical liberal"; an ungainly phrase which is only necessary because, though I would have voted for Gladstone, I probably wouldn't have voted for Dukakis, both of whom would have called themselves liberals, though over one hundred years apart.
Now in America at least, you are right, it is intensely ironic that the "side" in politics that calls itself liberal is often actually in favor of less freedom, more government regulation, and most galling, as MrStandfast has pointed out, has decided that it would rather infringe on the rights of the utterly helpless than force inconvenience on another.
Given the above, I feel I should clarify my feelings, especially in light of the vigorous debate that has gone on here. When I say my feelings on bioethics have been liberalized, I mean that, insofar as abortion is concerned, I no longer think I am 100% against it in all circumstances. I think, in instances like Amanda's, where the child is not going to survive, no matter what, I would probably not be averse to it.
At least, I would have said that before knowing Amanda. Now I'm not so sure.
I am positive I am against the application of abortion in any instance in which the child is viable. This is where my classical liberalism is aghast the characterization of an embryo as "aggregation of cells that cannot survive on its own". We are all collections of cells that cannot survive on our own: if placed underwater, or in outer space, or even in the desert without water, we would die. Every living thing requires a given environment in which to survive, and that of an embryo is the womb of its mother. I do think using "it can't survive on its own" is a slippery slope, one which is logically and pragmatically valid to avoid. Patients in a hospital generally can't survive on their own, which is why they are there, and I think my role as a future physician is to defend and care for these helpless who cannot survive on their own.
Utilitarianism is a cold ethic, one which a Christian moralist would do well to avoid.
All of which is a long winded way of saying, I'm probably not nearly as liberal as I think sometimes, and I regret that "liberal" no longer means what it did. Thank you to everyone who commented.