I think you missed the phrase "in abortion" in the sentence you quoted. You may feel that those positions are contradictory or hypocritical, but it's disingenuous to act as if pro-choice people agree.

Edit: also, if you're going to wade in to an ongoing discussion, it's nice to respond to the thing we're generally arguing about; don't just pluck one sentence fragment out and start a new discussion over it. When someone says, "I think X, therefore Y", they're arguing that X is true enough in this context to support a belief in Y, not that X is always true in all contexts, which is a much larger (and therefore, easier to argue against) claim.

The reason I address that point is that its the central point of contention why abortion is different from contraception and same sex marriage. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 illustrate that in some situation people, even non-religious people, want to to view unborn as more than just cells growing on the woman. It not just a religious belief but rather an emotional one.

My guess is that for popular belief, if a unborn dies because of violence to the woman then people emotionally see it as murder of an other human being. If the woman choose to abort then for social reason many/most people do not view it as a human being that died. This is however a conflict of views which has nothing to do with religion.

With contraception, even if it was done through force, no one outside of religious belief would see it as killing a human. How would even The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 be applied? Should each sperm count as a half human?

Similar with same-sex there isn't any direct situations where non-religious people suddenly would be in favor of outlawing it.

As for the exception written in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, what is say is that the legality of abortion is not effected by the definition of the that law. Nothing more, nothing less. We can have laws allowing abortion for social reasons regardless if we view the bunch of cells as being more than just a bunch of cells.

Also, I think you're engaging in a little historical revisionism about that law. My memory of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was that everyone, on both sides, understood it to be primarily a way to further the cause of banning abortion by maneuvering pro-choice politicians into a corner. It worked, but it seems disingenuous to speak as if it had bipartisan support; extra penalties for crimes against pregnant women had bipartisan support, referring to the baby as a victim of the crime did not.

I agree that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to be more opposed to abortion than gay marriage or contraception; but it is also true that people who believe a fetus is a person ought to favor easier access to contraception (which provably reduces abortions), and they generally don't, so here we are.

A bit of insider info from the UK on this one :) UK Catholics believe that life begins moment of conception and therefore generally oppose abortion (apart from extreme cases e:g mother might die, baby might die anyway, baby will suffer badly). Opposition to abortion generally goes with desire for better support of troubled mothers, but whether in practice this practically results in improved services seems doubtful. Apparently the stats say 90% of UK married Catholics actually use contraception. And parents quietly say to their teenagers "If you can't be good, be safe" ;). Gay marriage is something some clergy go about but the "silent majority" of Catholics is liberal on gay and trans issues I think, believing that committed love for each other counts more than what gender a couple are. So what you say ought to happen, seems to me does happen in the UK in my experience. However, what happens in the USA is a different matter. :)