Just because one can have a belief about when life begins that has nothing to do with religion does not change the fact that most if not all of those that pass laws that decide when life begins are doing so based on religious beliefs and minority ones at that.

I happen not to be remotely religious yet as I stated, I believe that life begins at conception through my spiritual beliefs. Even if I were religious, I would not be using and did not use my view as the basis of my argument. I simply said that because the pro-life view is based on a religious view (which I happen to share for different reasons yet I am pro-choice), it means that passing a law that codifies it violates the anti-establishment clause.

Furthermore, I shared my view not as the basis for my argument but for context that even someone who believes that life begins at conception can still be pro-choice (me) and see a constitutional basis for that outside of the flimsy privacy grounds upon which Roe was decided.

So, I do not think your analysis of my essay hold water. Thank you for reading and engaging and giving me the opportunity to clarify my thoughts for you and anyone else reading this exchange.

PS: Before you misunderstand my logic further or nitpick, as I and many others define spirituality, it is very distinct from religion. I often quote Neale Donald Walsch’s Conversations with God:

"Religion cannot stand Spirituality. It cannot abide it. For Spirituality may bring you to a different conclusion than a particular religion — and this no known religion can tolerate. Religion encourages you to explore the thoughts of others and accept them as your own. Spirituality invites you to toss away the thoughts of others and come up with your own."

I do believe that spirituality and philosophy are quite similar: https://medium.com/illumination-curated/marriage-of-philosophy-and-spirituality-742dc1d639f6