i don't think this thread is about religion preventing anything, just constantly getting in the way of the advancement of science and mankind.
Not sure how Bush's decision was strictly religious or why they needed to pay for it anyway. You seem to have trouble determining the difference between "getting in the way," "stepping out of the way," and "getting behind to help/push."
Next, it irks me that even religious people accept the false premise that being anti-abortion or anti-stem-cell-research is a religious thing. I don't go around saying that anyone who is against people murdering their parents must be against it because of The Ten Commandments saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Similarly, I don't try to tell people that being secular means you must support your right to murder your parents.
As much as both sides of the issue frequently agree that it is, it's not a religious thing: it's an individual rights thing. Even Libertarians frequently assume that if you are Libertarian then you must support abortion. Arguing against this incorrect assumption is actually harder than arguing your side of the issue simply because it is accepted by both sides.
It makes no sense. The REAL argument comes down to our life-long rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Where/when do those rights begin? The point of conception? Well, most (including myself) would say that's somewhat early... TOO early. How does a mass of non-self-aware cells have a right to life any more than my skin cells I just scratched off? How about we pick sometime later in the organism's life, like birth? Well, many would say that's a somewhat arbitrary point to choose considering that they still aren't independent, still have much development to do, and are potentially just as viable many days or weeks earlier. Can you really deny someone their legal right to humanity based on which side of the vagina they are currently on? Those who find it a recklessly arbitrary distinction with DRASTIC consequences for human life and individual liberties frequently say "no."
So there we have it:
An arbitrary distinction and a non-arbitrary distinction for when life becomes a protected human life entitled to its rights. Some people agnostically choose the non-arbitrary point (conception) for the simple fact that they consider the arbitrary one to be a potentially inexcusable violation of a person's individual rights and liberties. Between the two and prioritizing individual liberties over everything else, it's the logical choice.
Arguing that someone is not a person until they are born is arguing a point that requires acceptance of the
arbitrary distinction. You aren't going to get anywhere with that circular reasoning.
Furthermore, Libertarians like to assume that other Libertarians agree with them on abortion because it supports a personal freedom: a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. In reality, true Libertarian ideals are that your freedoms/rights are ONLY limited when they infringe on someone else's freedoms/rights. This is why they support drug legalization and less government regulation or involvement in the affairs of others (countries and neighbors), but they don't support your "right" to murder your parents. As soon as you consider the unborn a protected human life, then Libertarianism supports limiting the action that would infringe on the unborn's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property.
Anytime I witness someone dismiss it as a religious issue I picture the most ignorant person hand-waving away the relevant details so that they can ignore reality and go on believing whatever they want. That's not a particularly well-reasoned position to be in.
