They don't in general. Even the debate about abortion, assumed to be Biblical on the prohibition side, turns out to not to be so upon further analysis. St. Thomas Aquinas thought the soul, the essence of humanity, entered the foetus when the foetus had grown enough to have definite human form, not at conception. This was codified at the Council of Vienne about 1312. Since then, with the early microscopes the "homunculus" was observed, and the Church decided the soul entered at conception, and since then further advances in microscopic observation showed the "homunculus" was not there after all, but the Church stuck to its new edict in spite of that and of Vienne which is still in force. It's doctrine, and if that is religious, then this morality debate is religious, otherwise it seems unrelated to religious views.
They don't in general.
I even see them as being dangerous in Koestlers sense, -- that they encourage the divisions among peoples, rather than teaching us to learn to live with our differences under the rules of constitutional laws.
RW, when looking into what is Biblical, it is most apt to read the Bible. :-)