Thank you three for your contributions.
Re: language barrier :
You're absolutely right, Brother Robert, even using the "sanitized" terms seemed odd to me at the time, thank you for the reminder.
Re: how do we convince unbelievers that abortion is wrong? :
If they'll accept the premise that the Bible is true, we've already been through a few arguments that will work (or are they inadequate?). If they won't accept a Biblical argument, then on what basis can they be convinced of [b]any[/b] moral truth [b]at all[/b]? By what standard do they condemn murder (if they do)? If they have such a standard, can they justify obligating others to obey it?
This is more or less what I was getting at when I asked about how one might establish when, if not at conception, the baby is truly a "person" in the sense that killing him/her is "murder" (which is almost certainly condemned under their standard, even if they have no basis for that standard or cannot even articulate it). This "personhood," or lack thereof, is not observable or provable in any "scientific" way (the standard to which many appeal), so if they choose to believe that such "personhood" descends upon the baby at some time during the process, they can live by that belief if they wish, but what evidence do they have with which to convince everyone else, whom they would also have live consistently with that belief?
If that argument sounds familiar, it might be from pro-aborts saying something to the effect of "if you want to believe that abortion is murder because of some non-observable/provable theological/moral proposition, then you are entitled to your own beliefs, but don't force them on us."
Both we and they (the vast majority of them, anyhow) have these kinds of "religious" convictions, but they have a much harder time showing why they might be binding on others or even being honest enough to admit that their "religion" exists (even to themselves).
To paraphrase what Bro. Robert said the other guy said, thank God for pointing out these logical flaws in almost all non-Biblical positions, and spreading the word through servants of His like Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. That's my way of saying that I didn't come up with any of this, it's just presuppositional apologetics.
To recap my answer (or attempted answer) :
If they don't accept the Bible (or other [b]very[/b] similar system, pretty much only Judaism will do, as Islam holds that Allah can abrogate or change any truth, even to the point of making 2+2=14, a square circle, or making murder no longer a sin), they have no logical grounds for believing abortion is wrong. In fact, they have no logical grounds for believing murder is wrong, or any other moral proposition. Many of them [b]do[/b] believe murder is wrong, but they cannot justify that belief, they're simply being inconsistent. Don't be surprised if they resort (not necessarily intentionally, but all the same) to all other kinds of logical and hermeneutical gymnastics to justify abortion, including the very same modes of argument that they condemn elsewhere.