Check out this post, Name and Shame, repost, where he names Paul Hill's wife and kids, calls them "tacit supporters of terror," identifies their place of worship which he deems a "PRO-TERROR CHURCH" and invites readers to email the pastor and share the same sentiments.

Or this one which I will paste in entirety:

Prayer for safety, repost
"May the Good True Lord protect <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Professor Robert P. George</span> and keep him safe from terror and from assassination, so long as <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Dr. LeRoy Carhart</span> remains safe, terror-free, and unvictimized, and not one second longer."

Here is his blog post where he effectively repeats the same argument he gave above: RIP
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3>

I had read that comment as a "modest proposal," of sorts, but don't know the writer well enough to tell whether there was a twinkle in his/her eye when s/he wrote that.

He, she, or it is entitled to his or her opinion, but Anglo-American law hasn't caught up with any part of that argument.  My heart is a part of my body, but if I choose to have it killed, I break the law of my home state.  As long as suicide is illegal, Operation Counterstrike's argument is either witty satire or legal nonsense.

I'm going to give OC the benefit of the doubt on this one.  Nice satire, OC!

I am interested to know what is it about the location of a human being that gives one the right to kill?

I am assuming you are not wanting your argument to endorse infanticide. If this is the case, then you cannot simply appeal to "my body" as a newborn makes incredible demands on the body of its mother if it is breastfed. Even if not breastfed, the adult(s) taking care of it also have extremely high demands placed on their body to ensure its health and survival – sleep deprivation, formula making and feeding, nappy changing, financial drains (finances come from work, work requires the use of one's body), immunisations, doctors visits, increased cleaning and housework and so on. The demands a newborn places on the body of another are higher than the demands a fetus places on the body of its mother; you can measure it scientifically by comparing the calorie intake required by the life-providing adult pre-birth and after-birth (and also by talking to any woman who has been pregnant and then has cared for their own child).

Now, the reason I do not think you intended to endorse infanticide is because you limited your appeal to "My Body" with the addition of the qualification 'location,' you clearly stated that "What matters is not WHAT fetuses are, but WHERE they are." 

What I want to know is what is it about demands made on "My Body" that gives me a right to kill when those demands are made inside "My Body" but not when those demands (arguably greater demands) are made outside "My Body?" It seems rather arbitrary to claim that one's right to control one's body has this kind of assymetry.

Can you give a non-arbitrary account of the feature of location that enables it to remove the duty to provide and care for children one has brought into the world in one context and renders it into a right to kill in another? If you cannot, your argument either fails or it endorses infanticide.

Right-to-lifers have one right answer: human fetuses are persons, babies, members of the Human Family, and entitled to all the rights and privileges other humans enjoy.

But you have the wrong QUESTION. What matters is not WHAT fetuses are, but WHERE they are.

If something is inside my body, then I'm entitled to have it killed, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. Even if it's a person. Even if it's an INNOCENT person. If you were inside my body, I'd be entitled to kill you. If I were inside your body, you'd be entitled to kill me. In fact, if ALL the people in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD, including the innocent ones, the pregnant ones, and the unborn ones, were assembled somewhere inside my body, then I'd be entitled to holocaust them. Or, to just kill SOME of them (right-to-lifers!).

That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body". MY body is the body about which I, and no one else, get to decide who gets to live inside it, and when, AND HOW LONG.

If fetuses were as good and morally-pure and innocent as you say, they would not WANT to live inside another person's body where they were not welcome. A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted. If it could talk, it would say, as the abortion-doc's currette approached, "It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is to a far, far better rest I go, than I have ever known."

Abortion kills a person. Doing an abortion on a woman who does not want it is baby-murder. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

A foetus is human, but when do they become a person? If we agree persons have rights, can we also argue that non-persons do not…

This to me also seems to be a bit of a challenge to liberals to be true to liberalism when the issues get really tough

I predict that the defense will rest mainly around a mother’s rights trump a pre-borns.

MikeE: you need a different term than human to win that idea. Technically, a foetus is human from conception. We can verify this by checking the DNA.

However, in this post I wanted to be clear what the options are for liberals, some of whom may concede that a fetus is a human but who still attempt to justify abortion in spite of this.

I also wanted to address various attempts to evade the issue.