Kirk is confused. He thinks that being pro choice is the same thing as approving of the choice. He thinks that species membership is somehow a relevant factor in morality and rights. He clearly does not understand the distinction between a descriptive claim and a normative one. "I have a nose" is a description and in no way implies any normative claims to rights. He says that abortion is "wrong", but no, the implication of his argument is that abortion is infinticide, so his logic should lead him to impose a regime of forced pregnancies under penalty of life imprisonment for the mother, the doctor, the nurses and anybody else involved in the decision. He tries to water down this obvious implication. He claims that "doing something wrong after something evil is never the right thing," but he wants to use the power of the state to victimize the victim of sexual attack. if you are pro life, you must absolutely believe in the right of the state to take your organ to save a life. There is no escaping this logic. If a the state takes one of your kidneys to save the life of an accident victim, you must say. "bravo!" Kirk does not want to address this argument. Getting pregnant after sex does not in any way mean that the state must force you to do anything. Many people make mistakes in life, but we don't want the state to correct it unless it is a crime which is precisely the subject under discussion. If my actions led to a mistake, then my actions should correct it. "some might call it fetus"? That is what it's scientific name is.