The liberal side of the argument is taken of early on as they refer to a baby (unborn) as a "fetus" and not a baby. Unless of course it ironically suits their argument in rare cases when a pregnant woman is killed.
Either way, "fetus" indicates that a baby is something other than a life. That's why when engaging in discussions, I always counter the notion that pre-birth a baby is a "fetus" with the reality that it is in fact a baby.
The easy argument for that is that those admitting that a baby is merely a fetus until birth must confront the question that I pose. That question is how do they justify a prematurely born baby, say at six or seven months, with a baby of the same age, yet still in the womb, and perhaps even more developed as a result of going through a normal prenatal process?
There is no answer but to give up one side of the argument. If the side that "it's a fetus" is retained, then surely it's nothing more than a fetus after birth as well and "entitled" to the same treatment as it was in womb, namely abortion, which would be tantamount to murder under current laws.
If the side that "it's a baby" is retained, then the question becomes "at what point did it go from "fetus" to "baby"? A question for which those arguing the matter cannot possibly have an answer for, in spite of their lame efforts to have one.
The real leftists don't even want to use the word fetus, they prefer the term "clump of cells." They were livid when GE developed 3D ultrasound technology; my brother and his wife had one of these done last year, it actually looked like a photograph of a baby. The left is worried that such images will convince more women that it really is a baby.