Eorl wrote:...hence my use of the word "mostly".
Deny that "most" anti-choicers are religious people if you can.
The fact is that "most"
people are religious people.
So, most pro-lifers are religious people.
Also, most pro-abortion people are religious people.
Also, most political conservatives are religious people.
Also, most political liberals are religious people.
So what?
One could just as easily say that most pro-abortion people use their notions of right and wrong (which are based in their religion for the most part) to support their pro-abortion view.
My objection has more to do with your phrase
Quote:The whole anti-choice reasoning
as if everybody who is pro-life holds that view for the same reasons. They don't.
The pro-life view is certainly not dependent on religious reasons for support, although there are many.
Medical evidence (DNA) is clear that the unborn is a genetically distinct individual from the moment of conception. He/she does not have the same DNA pattern as his/her mother, hence the unborn is not a 'part of the mother's body'.
This is but one of the reasons why American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) considers the unborn a separate patient. Not because they are a 'religious organization'. (Far from it actually.) They are doctors.
Medical evidence clearly shows that the unborn has a heart pumping his/her OWN blood through it's OWN body before the end of the 4th week. That's before a large percentage of women even know they are pregnant.
The majority of abortions take place after the heart is beating, and often after there are brainwaves.
What has this to do with religion?
