There is nothing religious about the fact that the elective abortions in question kill humans. There is nothing religious about the concept that humans have the right not to be killed when they pose no danger to anyone else's life.
I've heard pro-abortion men and women testify to the Texas House State Affairs Committee (March 17th this year) that they understand that the child in question is a human being, they just don't believe that these humans have any human rights because of the current state of the law, and, since they don't have rights, it's not the business of government to protect them. The history of humans probably makes this opinion, that some humans have rights and others don't, more "normal" than the idea that all humans have rights. But, I'd prefer that the government acts along the line stated in the Declaration of Independence.
The Texas NARAL president denied, however that life begins at fertilization. Although she did not explain why the child has to be killed by abortion if he or she is not alive.
A human being begins at birth. That is why a persons age is measured from that date, not the date of conception. The unborn are not human beings, they are potential human beings.
The notion that the unborn are already human beings is a religious notion, whether a person who has swallowed it is religious or not.
It is very convenient when one wants to force their views on others to call what the want to prevent, "muder," or "cruetly," as the animal rights, tree-huggers, environmentalist, and those who place potential human beings above actual human beings all do.
(One reason you folks hate cloning is because it proves every cell in the body is a "potental" human being. Just think of the all the murder committed every day by those doctors performing operations that remove diseased or damaged organs. Millions and millions of murders.)
Hank