I didn't instruct you on anything Professor.
We got a lot of schemes to stick Genesis into the biology curriculum, but surprisingly little of any effectiveness to stop abortion. Yeah, we got little old ladies doing prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, and more power to them, but the GOP is scared to do anything but rattle sabers on the subject. And you know it as well as I do.
All of this interesting and a lot of it is undeniably true but none of it addresses my original proposition which is that religion addresses this particular moral problem much more than the secularists or non practicing religionists. Do you agree with that statement or not?
Some, but not all, religions do treat it as a moral evil, yes. And assuming the non-religious person thinks about ethics, he or she might come to different conclusions, based on different premises. A utilitarian might well come to the conclusion that abortion is not evil, as Peter Singer has (Singer even thinks under some circumstances it's permissible to kill newborns). A Kantian's decision would be more complex; but it's hard to see how a Kantian could permit abortion after the point the unborn had become human - it would violate the second categorical imperative (humans shouldn't be treated as a means to an end).
Of course, when does the fetus becomes human is the $64,000 question, and if one discounts arguments from immediate ensoulment, it's not an easy one. I'm inclined to put it at the point when the fetus has the physical appearance of a human being, and detectable brain activity. That is, of course, very early in gestation; perhaps a few weeks. If there is a social consensus about abortion possible, it might be to draw the line at that point.
On the issue of whether religion motivates people to oppose abortion more than irreligious people, yes it does, but I generally don't think one should get much credit for good intentions when the actions are ineffectual.