The “religion” objection is a dodge, not a refutation. As Francis J. Beckwith points out, "Arguments are either true or false, valid or invalid. Calling an argument “religious” is a category mistake like asking, “How tall is the number three?” Pro-lifers argue that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, abortion does that, therefore, it's wrong. If critics can refute that argument with evidence, go for it. But it won’t do to dismiss it with a label.
Moreover, pro-life Christians aren’t imposing their views any more than abolitionist Christians were imposing theirs or the Reverend King was imposing his. Rather, we’re proposing them in hopes we can persuade our fellow citizens to vote them into law. That’s how a constitutional republic like ours works. We’re not looking to establish a theocracy we impose on non-Christians, only a more just society for the weakest members of the human race. All human life is precious to God because we uniquely bear his image (Genesis 1-2).
Indeed, it is no more religious to claim a human embryo has value than to claim it doesn’t. Both claims answer the same exact question: What makes humans valuable in the first place? That is an inherently religious question with no neutral ground. Either you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life or you don’t. The pro-life view is that humans are intrinsically valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are. The abortion-choice view is that humans have value only because of an acquired property like self-awareness or sentience. Notice that both positions—pro-life and abortion-choice—use philosophical reflection to answer an inherently religious question, What makes humans valuable in the first place? Thus, if the pro-life view is disqualified for asking religious questions, so is the abortion-choice one. At issue is not which view of abortion has religious underpinnings and which does not, but which view of human value does a better job of accounting for human rights and human dignity.
Finally, what do we mean by the separation of church and state? Do we mean it in the modest sense that the state should not establish a denomination or in the strong sense that religious believers have no right to bring their values to the public square and argue for them like everyone else? Why the constant harping about the separation of Christianity and the state but not the separation of secular metaphysics and the state or feminist theory and the state? In short, do believers get to participate in their own government or is that right reserved only for secularists? If only for secularists, where is that found in the Constitution?
What makes humans valuable in the first place? That is an inherently religious question with no neutral ground.
Myth #2: Men have no moral authority to speak on abortion.
