Abortion

Nulono, I've seen you elsewhere, haven't I? You've already had this discussion on RevLeft.com.

I've briskly read your link and I'll give a fairly incomplete response to it, only because this is quite a stressful topic to commit to arguing about. Not because of the so-called 'discrimination against the unborn', but because of that towards women, that which I doubt the author of that article fully comprehends, or refuses to fully acknowledge.

The suggestion that women have abortions only because of the sexism they experience, and because they're 'alienated in our capitalist society' as some sort of argument against freedom of choice reminds me somewhat of the 'stolen generation' of Indigenous Australians. Those poor children are having their lives ruined by their upbringing by their savage parents. Therefore - we'll forcefully remove them and put them into Christian 'camps'! Sounds good. Supposed moral sympathy is often used as a justification for the oppression of social groups. "Look at those poor women, they're only having abortions because of evil capitalism! As socialists it's our duty to force them to stop!"
Cut the bullshit. Replace sexism with 'unnatural lesbian pressures' and capitalism with 'feminism' and you've got yourself an argument from the Christian Right.

The mistake this article makes, most obviously, is calling a fetus a 'child'. A child is the name for a human being that has been born. A fetus is not a child, it's a fetus, and calling it a child doesn't make it one.
Abortion does not negate women's ability to create life. Hystorectomies do. Women still have the ability to create life before, during and after an abortion. What abortion does is give women the ability not to create life (thereby validating the creation of life as a true ability of women, not an externally declared purpose in the interests of 'society'). Given the impact of pregnancy and child birth upon a woman's body and mind, directly (the impacts are obvious, I'm sure you'll agree) and indirectly (through her potential inability to work and earn money to live, potentially being fired altogether by their employer after getting pregnant, which is absolutely not any kind of small risk, the heavy financial burden after having a child and the serious social pressures women can face, by their family and by wider society, to keep the child they may give birth to) this is a serious ability to deny a woman, and one which truly does assert the role of women's anatomy as that which serves an inalienable purpose to society of producing children, rather than part of an individual human being, with freedom over themselves.
It is the pro-life position which turns women inherently into physical objects, with a "natural" obligation to serve society (read: the state).
One of the "hallmarks of capitalism" is the constant need for the replenishment of the labour force. It is in the interests of the capitalist system that women be denied control over their own bodies, so that control is passed onto the state, control of reproduction - that which this article ironically calls 'women's unique ability to create life'.
No fetus, just like no child, should ever have the "right" to use a woman's body against her will. The very assertion that this is the case reinforces the weakly veiled pro-life view of women as baby-making machines. The same line of argument has never and would never be used to suggest that people who need an organ transplant should be able to forcibly take people's organs for them to use, or that a starving person should be able to eat other people. The fetus is an emotional exception for pro-lifers - it offends them that a woman should have the legal right to deny their physical purpose.
No amount of leftist rhetoric can ever turn the denial of women the ability to have an abortion into a socialist position.