Did you just compare actual living sapient people with thoughts and feelings to an unconscious, unborn fetus?

Maybe you have a lot in common with a fetus. I don’t.

The argument is flawed in the following way.

1. If some crimes are punished more severely than others, then the government could accuse its critics of committing these crimes.
2. Therefore, no crimes should be punished more severely than others.

But this conclusion is ridiculous. Some crimes should be punished more severely, possibly up to and including the death penalty.

My point is that if you do want to argue against the death penalty, this argument is not it.

EDIT: The only good arguments against the death penalty focus on the the kind of civil society you would rather live in — one that has a bureaucratic apparatus for killing people, or one that does not.

Arguments against the death penalty based on specific crimes are unpersuasive, since some crimes really do deserve death, morally speaking — the problem has always been an administrative one. Even if some violent (or even white collar) criminals deserve to die, building a bureaucratic apparatus to administer their deaths would make for an evil sort of society.