Repeated - and, sadly, successful - attempts to deny the right to abortion shows the religious wackos are at least a state-level force that can’t be ignored.
Abortion is not an LGBT issue and anti-abortion types are not exclusively religious. The split between anti-abortion and pro-abortion is almost 50/50 in the US and 50% of America are not fundamentalist Christians.
There are no arguments against early abortion that wouldn’t be either religiously motivated, or based on non- religious logical fallacy. From what I’ve seen on American media, almost all of it is religiously motivated. It doesn’t matter that fundamentalists don’t identify themselves as fundamentalist.
I think the fundamental argument against early abortion is itself not religiously based. That argument goes like:
1. There is a secondary organism (life) within the womb upon conception.
2. That life will become a human being. Therefore:
3. That life must be given the same rights to not be killed that other (fully grown) human beings have.
Where is the religion or logical fallacy in that line of thought?
We even see aspects of this logic applied within common law, in that a pregnant woman (regardless of the length of pregnancy) that is murdered is considered a double-homicide.
I think it's unhelpful to approach a highly-contentious subject with the thought that the people on one side have absolutely no logical reason for believing what they do. I say logical, because the implication that something is religious is a way in modern rhetoric to defuse the opposing view by implying that the person holding it is not approaching from any sort of empirical worldview, but instead only deriving their argument from some ancient document of (whichever) religion.
This is all based on assumption you can force someone to “donate”, or partially sacrifice, their body for whatever reason. And this assumption comes from a fundamentally misogynistic interpretation of religion.
> There are no arguments against early abortion that wouldn’t be either religiously motivated, or based on non- religious logical fallacy.
This is only true if you expand “religious” to mean “based on moral axioms regardless of source”, but then, any argument for or against doing (or allowing, or prohibiting) anything would be religious.
> From what I’ve seen on American media, almost all of it is religiously motivated.
OTOH, yes, the American anti-abortion movement is almost entirely a product of politically weaponized Christian conservatism.
> It doesn’t matter that fundamentalists don’t identify themselves as fundamentalist.
While the religious groups involve overlap with Fundamentalism (which is a particular subset of Protestantism), they aren’t all Fundamentalist.
Based on the moral axioms you’ve chosen. Axioms are, by definition, unsupported and unsupportable.
> Unless your moral axioms are fundamentally flawed, which is what I’ve described above.
No, what you described above was belief that was “religiously motivated, or based on non- religious logical fallacy.” Axioms are the roots from which logic works, they aren't based on logic, fallacious or otherwise. And there's no reason moral axioms that conflict with abortion need to be religiously motivated, either.
Sure, you might view any moral axioms thst disagree with yours as “fundamentally flawed”, but that doesn’t salvage your earlier description.
Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s a logical fallacy or religiously motivated. Get out of your bubble and talk to people and you’ll learn things!
