Separation of Church and State in the Abortion Debate

Someone recently wrote the following to me:


"Abortion is a legitimate part of women's reproductive health care and I despise the interjection of religion into this. There is, after all, a separation between church and state and it should stand firm. Just because you or anyone else doesn't believe in abortion doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on those who do not feel the way you do."

The following is my response. I would welcome any comments or thoughts on it:


Separation of church and state - a phrase frequently quoted but rarely understood. The original intent of the founders was to ensure that government did not impose any one religion upon all. In essence, it was to keep the government out of the church. However, it would be impossible to keep the church out of government since the government is constituted of the people, who naturally hold to their various religious persuasions. You don't have a church, you say? Still, this does not exempt you from bringing (in essence) religion into government. Why? Simply put, all of us have values. Some of us derive our values from the Bible, others from life experience, and some just absorb the values of those around them. Most of us espouse a value system that is some combination of our experience and what we were taught as kids. But in the end, we all have beliefs. And in the end, we all want the government to reflect our particular beliefs.

Many Americans believe that abortion is murder, since it is depriving a fetus the right to life. Many others believe that the rights of a woman would be violated by laws protecting her fetus, since the fetus is in her body. I believe that abortion is wrong because it violates an unborn baby's right to live. It is impossible for me not to consider a fetus a life, since it begins circulating and pumping its own blood - often with its own blood type - at about the same time most people are just noticing their period is late! We now know that babies develop their own unique fingerprint at 3 months gestation, and that babies in the womb are able to dream, remember, feel and express emotion through facial expressions long before they are ever born. I do believe in choice - in a baby's choice to grow up and make a life for him or herself!
I also believe in women's rights - including the right to decide who to have sex with, and when. We are all free to choose to do whatever we want, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our decisions. Therefore, it is up to us to choose wisely. I understand that there are cases of incest or rape where the woman did not choose to have sex, and I think perhaps those cases deserve special consideration, just as is the case when the woman's life is seriously jeopardized by pregnancy.

Ultimately, this post is not about my beliefs. It is about rebuffing the notion that the pro-life movement has no place in civil society because of its religious underpinnings. For someone to assert that a particular view point should not be considered because of where that belief originated - in this case because it originated with religion or spirituality - is both absurd and prejudiced. Laws should be considered alone on the merits of liberty. Does the law deny liberty or does it expand it? Does it go far in protecting the rights of some, while destroying the rights of others? This should be the gage.

The beliefs of a pro-life individual are not of necessity derived from their religious beliefs, but ultimately it does not matter why someone believes something. It is their belief, and as an American, they have the right to fight for laws that reflect their belief!!

Fighting for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves is something I have to do to be true to myself. What is more American than that?