I went to a religious-run school where the anti-choice agenda was pushed harder than actual faith. There was no instruction in catechism, but plentiful encouragement of referring to foetuses as "babies".
A lot of anti-abortion campaigners pretend that their stance is a non-religious one. This is obviously false when you examine it. Creationists also claim to be non-religious, with the same falsity.
There are a handful of people who claim to be atheists but also take an anti-choice view. They use this fact to claim that the anti-choice worldview is not religious or faith-based, but in fact compatible with logic and reason. This is false.
A belief in God or Gods or an afterlife is not in fact necessary for a given belief to be a religious, non-rational one. You don't need to believe in Papal infallibility, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Allah, the ghosts of your ancestors or the tree spirits to be religious.
You can be religious without any of these things. To be religious simply means to believe in something independently of evidence. For example, the belief in machine elves is religion without a God: Machine elf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's quite easy to tell a non-religious belief from a religious one. Assume that a given belief is X. The way to tell whether belief in X is religious or secular is as follows:
Find someone who believes in X.
Ask him "What evidence will I have to present to you in order to convince you that X is untrue?"
The believer's response will tell you whether his belief is religious or not.
If he says "Well, if you can present me with evidence Y, I will abandon my belief in X" then the person is using reason, not faith.
If he says "There is no evidence that could change my mind on X" then it's religion.
For X, let's assign the belief that human life begins at conception, rather than the previously universally-held worldwide belief that it begins at birth. Ask any anti-choice person: "What evidence will I have to present to you in order to convince you that life begins at a point subsequent to conception?"
The answer, of course, is that all scientific inquiry is irrelevant to this person's belief. His views are immune to all currently-existing evidence, and any evidence that scientists will ever produce in the future. He already knows that a conception results in a glob of sixteen cells with no organs or nerves, and he already ignores this fact and calls the glob of cells a baby. Evidence is not a factor in this person's thought process on this issue.
On this method of analysis (made popular in the 20th century by Karl Popper) anti-abortion dogma is revealed to be a faith and not amenable to logic or evidence. Therefore by banning abortion the religious are forcing their faith on non-believers.
So it's time for the Irish Choice Network to be given access to the schools to correct the abusive indoctrination of young minds with fair counter-propaganda. Then, once each student has been given an equal dose of pro- and anti-choice propaganda, withdraw all propaganda on the issue.
But schools must continue to teach the non-equivalence of faith and science. Anti-abortion campaigners will whine that that gives the pro-choice side an advantage, because reality sides with science over religion. I would retort that the human brain's bias toward illogical beliefs gives religion a far more powerful advantage, though.