No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed.

It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met.

I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.

No, sometimes social change is putting up a fence. And if social change is sometimes putting up fences, that would mean that not all fences are supposed to be torn down.