Abolitionists accuse prolifers of "discrimination" because they lobby for laws that protect some babies rather than all babies. But the allegation is ironic:
i) To begin with, the charge of discrimination is nonsensical. For instance, it's discriminatory to choose one group over another group if you're in a position to choose both groups.
If, however, prolifers are striving to save all, and only those babies who can be saved right now, that's not discriminatory. They lack the wherewithal, at present, to save more babies. If they could, they would.
ii) In fact, it's actually the abolitionists who are guilty of discrimination. They discriminate against the babies who are savable by opposing incremental legislation. They discriminate against those babies by refusing to take feasible measures necessary to save them.
So not only is the abolitionist accusation false, but it boomerangs. On the one hand, prolifers don't discriminate against babies. On the other hand, abolitionists do discriminate against babies.
Abolitionists discriminate against babies in the present in the hopes of saving all babies in the future.