Faulty comparison, or false equivalence, or logically sound?

IWhile I have seen SOME secular arguments against abortion, most of the arguments tend to rely heavily on religious ideas such as souls, "God's creations," etc. to establish a stronger similarity.

Is there a point where that argument becomes a Special Pleading fallacy?

As a secularist, I see any mention of God's magic as "special pleading"—or at least a form of it. For example, the magic only is called upon when we don't have a non-magical solution. However, some theists propose God as a possible cause (not establishing the possibility, just claiming he is). Philosophically, I take issue with this, but because it seems consistent with their worldviews, I am not likely to call fallacy.

Could it also be a definist fallacy if they are saying a fetus is a baby? I believe babies are defined as post born? Using the definist fallacy would also make for a good appeal to emotion here. 

Sure. If the claim is that a Fetus is the same as a baby. Via reductio ad absurdum , we can demonstrate this is absurd because we would never see a mother pushing her newborn in stroller asking, "would you like to hold my fetus?"

Problem is we can define things here however we like.  We are drawing lines in sand. 

[To GoblinCookie]

I disagree, I don't think we can just define things however we like or else it would be a definist fallacy.

Words have precise definitions (well most the time) and we must adhere to the definition if we are to remain honest and accurate. 

Yes we can draw lines in the sand of reality as reality is one gradation and is not divided. But, once divided into words and definitions it would be more honest to adhere to them. Or else, literally anything goes which might be moving the goal post. 

Yes, but the definitions in this case *are* mostly utterly arbitrary.  The closest we can get to an objective definition would simply be unborn human vs born human, since being born is definitely an objective mile-stone in someone's life.  But anything beyond that we are making arbitrary subcategories, so embryo-fetus-whatever else is an arbitrary category among the unborn and baby-toddler-child-adult are arbitrary categories among the born. 

Categories are acceptable if you are measuring gradients of something aka argument of the beard, but hardly acceptable if you aren't measuring gradients of anything.  There is no gradients between something and itself at a later date. 

Ha! I don’t think we’d see too many politicians volunteering to kiss them either.