Intro to how pro-choicers argue
Part One: Ad Hominem attacks
Ad hominem (which means "to the man" in Latin) attacks are usually the simplest arguments to defeat because they aren't really arguments but rather personal attacks. They attack the arguer and not the argument.
Example 1: "You anti-choicers are just a bunch of religious fanatics and extremists. You don't care about women."
These are insults and attacks against prolifers based on who we supposedly are not on what we are saying. Even if these attacks were true, even if prolifers were just of a bunch of religious extremists who didn't care about women, would it do anything to disprove the prolife assertions that abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings and that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong? The obvious answer is no.
These attacks are irrelevant to the argument at hand: does abortion end the life of an innocent human being? Most of time people use ad hominem arguments because they can't use facts or logic to disprove their opponent's argument.
Example 2: "As a man who can never get pregnant you shouldn't be telling women what to do."
No male human being should never feel afraid or ashamed to speak up for life and against abortion simply because they're a male and can't get pregnant. Just because someone doesn't have the ability to become pregnant has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they can argue about abortion or whether or not the unborn are innocent human beings.
If men shouldn't have a say in abortion that means that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it was decided by nine men, right? What about women who can no longer get pregnant because of age or a hysterectomy? Must they be silent as well? What pro-choicers are really saying when they use this attack is that no male who disagrees with them should be able to speak about abortion. This is completely sexist and intolerant.
This attack is like a deadbeat dad telling a woman that she has no right to tell him he should pay child support because she has never paid child support. It makes absolutely no sense.
Example 3: "Anti-abortionists only care about fetuses. They don't do anything to care for women or children once those children are born."
Even if prolifers didn't do anything for born children, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings? This argument says that prolifers can't talk about abortion because they supposedly don't do enough for women in crisis and children once they are born. Why must prolifers take their scarce resources and spread them to stop every evil imaginable? That's like telling the American Lung and Heart Association that they have no business focusing on lung and heart diseases unless they first find a cure for Alzheimer's.
Even if prolifers only cared about fetuses, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings?
Plus, the fact is that many prolifers do an extraordinary amount for born children and women in crisis. The 3,000+ crisis pregnancy centers in our country are staffed and financed by prolifers.
On to Part Two