Stupid things religious people say

[Sheldon]

I agree, they're not pro-life, they're anti choice. I am pro life, that's why I don't want to enslave women, by taking away their bodily autonomy. Least of all to enforce the morality of archaic bronze age superstitions, and to grant those rights to an microscopic clump of insentient cells.

Semantics; opposing the "choice" to kill your child and thus allow it to continue to develop and live is "pro-life."

Sophistry, it's taking away a woman's bodily autonomy, and no child is involved in any termination. 

We are not interested in enslaving women; 

Yes, you clearly are. 

rather we are opposed to the idea that not all humans are granted the most basic of human right - life - 

More sophistry, no human is granted the right to use the body of another against their will, if an adult male of 18 was going to die, and the only donor was the father, and he refused to give up a kidney, you wouldn't advocate strapping him down and removing it against his will, even if it meant the death of the human being that was his son. So it is arbitrary to demand this "right" be granted to a clump of insentient cells. 

It's interesting you believe the pro-life stance is a religious one despite the number of atheists anti-abortionists

They're not mutually exclusive, and I never claimed that misogyny was solely the domain of those who cite archaic superstitions as justification. 

  atheism's inability to provide a moral framework, 

Research has demonstrated time and again that atheists are at least as moral as theists. So your rhetoric is as risible as your arguments. You are simply equating anything or anyone that doesn't share your adherence to archaic superstition as immoral, talk about a poisoning of the well fallacy, and a no true Scotsman fallacy thrown in for good measure. 

but the reality is that it is simply a pro-science, pro-life, pro-reason stance and nothing more.

Nope, and all one need do is see the errancy of your arguments here to demonstrate this is false. 

Dehumanizing language is not becoming - those "microscopic clump of insentient cells" remain a human all the same 

So much for being scientific, this is exposed by lies such as referring to a blastocyst or developing foetus as a child or baby, and then risibly claiming you are being scientific, but it matters not, to paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, I wouldn't care if it was in there writing poetry, it is a woman's body it is part of, and therefore it is her decision how that body is used. 

- and I've know quite a few bad humans who engaged in the same language about groups they deemed inferior.

Godwin's law, the poorly reasoned rhetoric continues unabashed. As I said, there is no such right, that lets any human use the body of another human against their will, even if it meant their death, so you are the one who is discriminating arbitrarily not me.