And it is easy to see why this is so. The government must not be in the position of determining what is and is not religion, or proper religion, nor of winnowing good religion from bad religion
Moreover, people hold strong views that they might not care to characterize as religious. Sometimes these views are in line with what other people believe who do hold them as religious beliefs. Does that mean that the viewpoint is any less valid, since it is arrived at from a non-religious perspective?
For instance, our Constitution declares pretty clearly that we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property. Further, the Declaration of Independence states the defense of rights like these is the very purpose for which we have government.
So if murder is illegal, the only question is at what age or condition does it start being illegal. When does life legally begin? The choices seem obvious — some point after birth, at birth, between birth and conception, and at conception. I don’t see how the law can pinpoint the time or state of development between conception and birth at which to say life begins. The state of the art of prenatal medicine is advancing so quickly, and the differences in neonatal development between individuals so great, that no law can move quickly enough or decide cleverly enough the exact circumstances under which one child is alive and the next one not yet alive.
Indeed, every fertilized egg has a different DNA, the same one it will have if allowed to grow into an adult. To end a pregnancy prematurely, therefore, is ending a human life.
Others claim the baby in the womb is property belonging to its mother, but I disagree. We don’t allow humans to be owned.