Yeah, this is why this isn't an entirely valid argument.
First off, there's nothing in any of the Abrahamic religions that favor abortion. Secondly, there's no prescriptive religious order, so it's not like you are required by God to get an abortion.
You can't just say that your religion allows you to do something, therefore you can do it.
Compare that to religious accommodation laws where a Christian (who had a day of rest on Saturday, rather than Sunday) was denied unemployment benefits because she couldn't find a job that would give her that schedule, therefore the state revoked her benefits and argued that she wasn't willing to work.
There's a huge difference. You don't have a religious obligation to kill your children.
Finally, as you point out, even if there is a certain religious obligation, it doesn't get to ignore criminal standards.
The religious argument is just a smoke screen so the pro-choice side can hide behind the first amendment. The crux of the argument is at this: at what point do you have a right to life? The fact that a person who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry can be charged with murder indicates that its before birth.
Personally, I think the answer is actually: Marriage is the asserted obligation that both parents will seek to raise children to adulthood regardless of the circumstances of the conception of the child. Pre-marital sex must be banned as to prevent the deaths of children, so that children must only be conceived by parties prepared to deliver them alive and well into adulthood.
Of course, that collapses the idea that we can't ban pre-marital sex.
Yeah, this is why this isn't an entirely valid argument.
First off, there's nothing in any of the Abrahamic religions that favor abortion. Secondly, there's no prescriptive religious order, so it's not like you are required by God to get an abortion.
You can't just say that your religion allows you to do something, therefore you can do it.
Compare that to religious accommodation laws where a Christian (who had a day of rest on Saturday, rather than Sunday) was denied unemployment benefits because she couldn't find a job that would give her that schedule, therefore the state revoked her benefits and argued that she wasn't willing to work.
There's a huge difference. You don't have a religious obligation to kill your children.
Finally, as you point out, even if there is a certain religious obligation, it doesn't get to ignore criminal standards.
The religious argument is just a smoke screen so the pro-choice side can hide behind the first amendment. The crux of the argument is at this: at what point do you have a right to life? The fact that a person who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry can be charged with murder indicates that its before birth.
Personally, I think the answer is actually: Marriage is the asserted obligation that both parents will seek to raise children to adulthood regardless of the circumstances of the conception of the child. Pre-marital sex must be banned as to prevent the deaths of children, so that children must only be conceived by parties prepared to deliver them alive and well into adulthood.
Of course, that collapses the idea that we can't ban pre-marital sex.