I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Highly relevant to the RR position I discuss below is their position I discussed previously, that Sex is For Marriage.

Abortion is Wrong and Should Be Illegal

See how so much is tying back to the principle that if you reserve sex for marriage, you’re not going to find conflict with the RR?

The legality of abortion is one of those areas where some conservatives and libertarians disagree with the RR, even if they believe that is abortion is wrong.  Their objections are that personal freedom and privacy outweigh the state’s interest in, or ability to, effectively recriminalize abortion.

While some people think the RR is simply trying to force people to live with the consequences of fornication, the RR has many reasons to seek the outlawing of abortion.

First and foremost, abortion kills a least one innocent human being each time it is successful.  You may quibble about “personhood” and all of that and joke about sperm and eggs that do not unite with each other, but the fact is that abortion kills a genetically distinct individual human being that did not exist before the sperm and egg united in conception.

Secondly, the RR cites abortion as bad for the pregnant woman in that, according to studies they cite, it:
-Like any surgery, may result in hemorrhaging and infections, though in this case it may not be readily apparent.
-May result in injuries leading to sterilization.
-May increase the risk of developing certain forms of cancer.
-May cause difficulty in bonding with children.
-May bring about emotional complications.
-Has given men a "reason" to resent women when the woman carries a pregnancy to term if he does not want to be a father or pay child support.

As for that last one… yes, strictly speaking, if the man doesn’t want to be a father he can avoid sexual activity, but likewise so can the woman, and yet she still gets more choices than the man.

Abortion is also bad for society, as it devalues human life and cuts short the life of someone who could contribute to society.

While members of the RR may agree that it would be hard to eliminate elective abortion, they cite the ability of law to discourage behavior and that there should not be a “right” to an abortion.  Decriminalizing abortion was successfully presented as a privacy issue in the past  However, the public “wrongful birth” lawsuits in recent years have shown that it is actually a “right” to a dead baby.

People in the RR get that people don’t want to see women get injured from “back alley” abortions, and  many "pro-choicers" work to keep abortion legal for those reasons, agreeing that abortion is terrible and should be rare.  However, if you really believed abortion was so terrible, though, wouldn’t you be directing your resources into helping women in crisis pregnancy instead of fighting for their “right” to get an abortion, especially the girls abused by family members, thereby eliminating the “need” for “back alley” abortions?  Proper use of contraception for those who refuse to abstain should have greatly reduce abortions, and in the rare instances where contraception fails, there is the option of adoption.

The RR maintains that these unborn babies are human beings, with a complete set of human DNA, that as long as he or she has shelter, nutrition, and respiration, will continue to develop AS a human being, NOT into a human being.

You can’t expect RR people to see a need for abortion, because they believe that sex is for marriage in the first place.  You’re asking them to not only affirm what they see as murder, but affirm something that tries to mitigate the consequences of something of which they disapprove of in the first place, rather than seeing their point that not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term is one reason you should agree to their original moral stance.

Even with the recent SCOTUS decision, the “right” to abortion is so sacred to some that we’ve gotten to the point where there is a “right” to take underage girls across state line for a late-term abortion - paid for by taxpayers -  without parental notification and without informing her of the alternatives, risks, fetal development, etc.  I dare say our Freedom of Speech isn't that strong.

So this is why the RR works to recriminalize abortion.  They see it as murder, as devaluing human life, as harmful to the mother, as something that causes discord between the sexes, as something that causes division between the generations, and government force as a legitimate means to discourage abortion, as the government exists to protect individuals from harm by others.

The RR isn't pushing for abortion recriminilization to "keep women down."  RR folks genuinely believe in the value of human life, which is why they also oppose doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia. I’ll get to that one later.  There are many RR pro-lifers who, individually or corporately, work to help women in crisis pregnancies and who do adopt children.  They aren't simply focusing on "legislative solutions."