Some people, such as former Senator John Danforth, argue that we should not legislate against something for which there is no clear public consensus, particularly when the issue could cause deep division.  Rather, they argue, we should allow a great deal of liberty so everyone can decide for him/herself on the issue.  This logic is often employed for moral issues such as embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), cloning, and abortion.  It is said the government should not take sides.  There are two problems with such a view.

First, there is no such thing as government neutrality on moral issues.  To say a woman can choose for herself whether she births or kills her unborn child while the government stands on the sidelines of non-interference is to side against those who argue the unborn are valuable human beings from conception whose lives should be protected.  By leaving the choice to the mother, the State affirms that the unborn is not a valuable human being who should be accorded government protection of its rights to life.  Government “neutrality” is a farce.  To allow a morally suspect practice by an act of law is not neutrality, but endorsement.

What if we were in the 19th century and the issue before us was slavery?  Slave owners could have argued that since people are divided on the question of whether blacks are persons, the government should leave it up to the individual.  If you believe blacks are not persons, and choose to own slaves the government will give you the liberty to do so.  Everyone would recognize this as fallacious reasoning.  By allowing blacks to be owned as property the State would be affirming that blacks were property, not persons worthy of protection.  The same goes for abortion and destructive embryo research.

The second problem with this view is that there is no consensus that says we ought not legislate on issues that are controversial and divisive.  There are many individuals who believe we ought to legislate against certain practices, even if they are divisive and no clear consensus has emerged.  If we are divided on how we ought to act legislatively on divisive issues, then according to this rationale we ought not put this legislative theory into practice.  It is self-refuting.  Slavery was a divisive issue, and yet everyone agrees that it was proper to legislate against it.  The same goes for morally controversial issues such as ESCR, cloning, and abortion.