Denial of free choice irrespective of religion. Any ban would be based upon a religious belief over the beginning of life (as there is no scientific evidence to support it AFAIK), and thus would impose that belief (or rather, its consequences) upon everyone.
No way.
Even going by what's known about the developmental process, setting an arbitrary limit based on generalizations doesn't fly as 'science'. It's even less definite than whatever the bible must be saying constitutes human life. Of course, I haven't actually seen anyone post relevant passages, but everyone seems to assume there's
something in the bible that says it's true.
To get science truly involved, you have to recognize that there is a difference in the rate of development. It's pretty uniform; but I have a hard time believing that at 5 months 29 days, a foetus has no brain and no capacity to feel pain, but then at 6 months, it suddenly does.
Scientific evidence which
does support it? High-school Biology, actually. After fertilization, the DNA of a Foetus is that of a human. It has a full set of 23(46) chromosomes. If given time, it will eventually grow and develop into a human being, provided it isn't naturally aborted (or, of course, artificially aborted).
Going further on, when the baby is born, it is a separate entity from its mother, but it still requires care. It is incapable of many of the things that ordinary humans are. It is not biologically entwined its mother's body system, however, but I think the main difference is that it can interact with other people. Most people (myself included) find the thought of killing a baby post-birth repulsive, regardless of how many months old it is.
To me, this seems to be based mostly on an individual basis. I know there was a group of people who were talking about or trying to get it legalized to 'abort' from conception to 2 years after birth. Does that mean they are less religious than people on this board? Doubt it. We've got/had some pretty dedicated atheists here.
I do think it means that they operate on a different code, I'll say, than other people. I can see different
ideologies playing a part in making the decision as to what 'human life' really is, but I don't think that religion is the only difference in ideology that exists.
Anyway, regarding civil rights, defining civil is another grey area. What happens when one person's 'right' bumps into another? If I play a Britney Spears song, when does my right to exercise 'freedom of expression' violate my neighbor's right from 'cruel and unusual punishment'?
