Granted, Muslims would make the same decision, and the punishment for violations would be far worse than anything concocted by a Christian. Many of them would throw every "LGBx for Palestine" person off the top of the nearest building, after all. Christians don't do that.
But, our homicide statutes are not religious based...properly so. You don't need to go to God to decide that ending a human life is wrong. You just need to use consequential logic. By consequential logic, ending an innocent human life is wrong (victim protected), but wearing a condom is fine (no victim). Religion is free to condemn both if it wants.
Put another way:
1) Religion should be free to define both non-consequential and consequential morality for its adherents, and to use the persuasive authority of the pulpit to persuade everyone to avoid both non-consequential and consequential immoral acts.
2) Governments should stick to consequential morality, and use the coercive power of the state to stop consequential immoral acts (acts with victims).
Because governments use coercion, they should be limited to consequential morality. Because religions are limited to persuasion, they are free to say what they want on any moral issue.
Abortion is often stated to be a religious issue, but because it does entail the ending of an innocent human life, it can be analyzed (and bans can be enacted...at the state level, without our federal system) without having to resort to religious values.