We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[kandrathe]

...

By allowing the legislation of morality, we open the door for ideologues to hijack our government under its banner.  Historically, communitarianism is the arch-enemy of personal liberty.
[right][snapback]91047[/snapback][/right]

Certainly slippery slopes on either side of enforcing morality or providing no moral compass at all. Too much moral legislation and you condemn the entirity of society, ala Prohibition. However, there is a boundary which we've discussed in the Lounge before on the boundary of personal rights and their extensions onto the rights of others. For me, I see society as a compromise of expectations and norms -- they certainly drift over time, but generally we can agree on particular offenses that should be within the mandate of the state to prohibit, especially clear when they directly interfere with another person, or persons property. We've hashed over topics from prostitution, drugs, sexuality, and in general with these grey area rights I'm more open minded to try to understand both sides of balancing personal freedoms and societal harms. We talk in the world of abstracts, but we live in the world of realities. I might believe and hold the virtue that each able bodied person must stand on their own and struggle to make it in this society, but then I am also humane and would not desire to see poor people freezing or starving to death in our ghetto's. Action is required, and we might disagree on the methods of housing, clothing and feeding people, but we might all agree that it needs to be done.

So as to not de-rail the topic at hand as it pertains to my view of legislating morality in this case we are talking about an act which may or may not curtail an individuals rights. What is nebulous is whether a fetus is a lump of tissue, or if it is an individual.