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.
You would agree I presume that this would be a descent into amoral chaos?
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).
Well, you could have thrown in a little Mills and with Mills, Kant and Singer what we have is theoretical chaos and a strong argument for moral absolutes as defined by a religious organization like the Catholic Church and rights which flow from the Creator.
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 really don't think when the fetus becomes human is an argument at all. Science defines human beings by its genome, no? An embryo's genome is that of a unique human being. Personhood is the point of argument because even Justice Blackmun stated that if a fetus were a person, then 14A covers same.
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.
I'm an absolutist on abortion being an intrinsic evil from conception but I'm a pragmatist on limiting abortion politically. I happen to think that there is a consensus growing to roll back abortion in the US right now to the first trimester and that is the goal for now.
But rolling back stare decisis is a slow and ponderous process and takes years. Only the faithful have the patience to fight that battle at that pace.
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.
Well, I guess we'd have to disagree about that.