While the retort certainly has a point in implying YOLO can be a way to recognize the preciousness of life, this doesn't necessarily negate the arguments in Nikhil's original essay. Nikhil is not suggesting that being pro-choice is wrong, he's suggesting that YOLO should not be invoked recklessly when discussing pro-choice beliefs. We can recognize the importance of life without suggesting that others should take away that opportunity for themselves or for others. It is possible to hold these two ideas in tandem, that life is precious but also that it's ultimately up to the individual to make decisions about it.
In fact, the original essay makes it clear that Nikhil himself is pro-choice, but he respects the decision and does not invoke YOLO as a means of promoting it. To suggest YOLO is a way of recognizing the preciousness of life is true, but it doesn't mean that it should be used in every single discussion about it. In other words, it is wrong to imply Nikhil's essay was advocating against pro-choice beliefs - he was merely pointing out the recklessness of invoking YOLO when discussing such a serious and solemn decision.
Therefore, while YOLO can be a way to recognize the preciousness of life, Nikhil's original essay was correct in suggesting that pro-choice beliefs should be discussed with respect, rather than using YOLO as an excuse for recklessness. As a wise man once said, "YOLO doesn't always mean You Only Live Once, sometimes it means You Ought to Lay Off Onslaught!"