According to you, which means jack squat.
So an argument based on "because I think so based on my own ideas" is different than an argument based on "Because I think so based on a religion"?
what you're asking people to do when you rely on your god to make your argument is believe in that deity as you do. if they don't believe in the same higher power, or in that deity in the same ways, you won't be able to make your argument.
however, science, logic, evidence, real tangible things, these are things you can argue.
but again, if your argument rests on how an unspeaking invisible deity that may or may not exist may or may not feel on a subject then your argument is inherently weak.
That pretty well depends on what the argument is about. If the debate is over morality, then the reason for a belief is immaterial. Whether one believes that the unborn is entitled to life because of religion, or just common sense, is immaterial to their desire to argue for that life.
How anyone could morally justify the concept that a human being that is minutes old is entitled to the right to life, while a human being that is minutes from being born, is not entitled to the right to life, is unclear to me. What is the moral dividing point?
Unless one can delineate and justify that moral dividing point, the argument ceases to be a moral argument and becomes a political one.