I will try to respond if I can.As stated in the article, its a war on the unborn. That is, someone wants to treat the unborn as enemy soldiers.
The implication is that its someone who wants to win a victory through killing fetuses. Whom would that be?
He claims "Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments." That is not conversational language but accusatory. If it were conversational we could argue on basis of scripture whether his opinions were scriptural. How does he claim to know that governing entities did it without regard for God? Because he considers himself an authority on God. Its there in his language. If he's the authority on God there is no discussion to be had with him. You simply have to accept his word or reject his authority.
"When the controversies about abortion are debated, 'individual right of choice' is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue." -- from the article.
I have to agree its not a great argument. Rights are in my opinion not the way to view this. I view women as governors of their wombs. This seems most natural to me. Rather than rights only they are endowed with authority also. I don't think, however, that a fetus has rights above the mother's authority but rather has privileges granted by the mother or at least through the mother.
Here are some things not addressed in the article that can be deduced perhaps from the typical small protestant canon just going by stories and things: The unborn has value. The unborn is not spiritual until it has breathed. The unborn is a person being made in the womb. The unborn may be stillborn to punish the father (as with David and Bathsheba's first child). The unborn does not inherit. The unborn has no name until it is born.