Imposing the concept of choice into the subject of whether or not to commit abortion-homicide (i.e. infanticide) is erronous and inapplicable.

The factor of 'choice' pertaining to the abortion/non-abortion debate is irrelevant. Superfluous. Needlessly non-necessary.

"Choice" concerning (not regarding) abortion is beside the point. It does not really apply in that situation. Using the word 'choice' is an obviously-devious way to beat around the bush, miss the mark, and not contemplate abortion directly.

It is clear - to anyone who thinks logically and honestly - that our Creator (who we have been told is: GOD) has given ALL of us free-will CHOICE....no matter WHAT we choose to choose with that choice.

In other words, choice is a given. It is itself benign, and the Lord is not to blame for giving each of us free-will choice. Therefore, I cannot adequately describe to you how ludicrous and absurd those are who equate abortion with choice and thus call people either pro-'choice' or anti-'choice.' It is ridiculous and inexpressibly inane, inappropriate, and stupid. Obviously, to divert argumentation to a theological or philosophical haggling about the concept of freewill 'choice' completely bypasses the precise subject of abortion homicide.

Concordantly, there never has been, is not now, nor ever will be a ['legal'] right to commit ANY criminal action (such as infanticide in the context of this webpage)....but instead a capacity to do so! Again, GOD is not at fault for giving evil-chooser people that capacity.....nor is He at fault for the wicked choosing to misuse that capacity! In view of that, abortive baby-murderers do not perform such atrocities, but instead commit them!

Now that that is out of the way, we can concentrate on abortion.

What is abortion?

Abortion - as it is commonly understood nowadays in the media and elsewhere - is the traumatic and abnormal clinical disruption of a pregnancy which seriously and in many ways not only medically abuses and mangles the pregnant woman but also painfully destroys (and for all intents and purposes: murders) the NON-born (not 'un'-born nor 'pre'-born) entity within her.

And what (but better yet: WHO) is that entity? WHO (not "what") should we consider that lifeform entity to be? Should it be mis-termed an IT....or instead he/she be correctly called a HE or SHE? Should he/she be called a that or which.....or rather a WHO? [Having said that last statement, I am painfully well aware of the confusing inadequacies of archaic and antiquated KJV-type Chaucerian-Elizabethan English language semantics].

There are many opinions.

Those who try to justify abortion murder miscall that entity a mere fetus....misattempting to limit their vocabulary to non-religious pseudo-medical linguistics. In stark and sharp contrast, those who rightly illegitimatize abortion correctly call that entity a CHILD.

What is the basis for me so understandably discriminating between the two?

In all the total scope of science, there is another entity in existence which must - in all fairness - be taken into account: The HOLY BIBLE.

The Greek New-Testament word for the English word SON in Luke 1:36 is: uion. That Greek word only and always is properly translated: SON....and nothing else. That word there occurs in the context of a pregnant woman (Elizabeth) who (that Scripture informs us) was with child. NOT 'fetus.' MUCH more than simply a 'fetus.'

Luke 1:41 tells us that a [ pre-born ] BABE (Gr. brephos) leaped in Elizabeth's WOMB. Luke 2:16 further records that an [already-born ] BABE (Gr. brephos) was lying in a MANGER.

The EXACT SAME Greek word brephos is given for BOTH a BABE in a WOMB and a BABE lying in a MANGER.

There is NO getting around that, and the implications are OBVIOUS:

Not only does 'life' begin at conception, but a HUMAN CHILD begins at conception. That is GOD's call, and beyond the whims and wishes of the parent-caretakers in large part responsible for or involved with that conception.

And being that both the pre- and already-born babes are SEPARATE entities THEMSELVES, they are (in that sense) NOT merely 'a part of the mother's body' and therefore she (in that sense) has no jurisdiction over them except to not mistreat nor abuse them.

Moreover, I Timothy 2:15 informs us that: 'women will be saved by childbearing.'

I Timothy 5:14 adds: 'I would therefore have the younger women marry, bear children, manage the house, and give the adversary no cause to revile us.'

Another Bible verse states that if anyone does not provide for his own household, he has disowned the faith, and is worse than a disbeliever. Thus, child support is a Scriptural requirement.