All of his arguments are the same, just extremely long winded.

Just distill each point to one or two core sentences and attack those points.

He attempted to bludgeon you with words, use some verbal (written) tai-chi or judo. Keeo your balance and attack his core.

Ok, so I'm going to try to offer you a couple specific counter arguments to him, though they won't be in order.

I want to flush out some things against his argument that men should have a legal right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. While I really believe it's a good idea to talk things out with a partner, I know first hand that it's not always possible. There are many ways women (or men, for that matter) can be abused by their romantic partner, and in most states, psychological abuse is not illegal. If a psychologically abusive male gets his girlfriend pregnant, possibly through coercing her into unprotected sex, would you force her to be forever legally tied to this abusive man? Putting the resulting child up for adoption would require the consent of both the woman and the man, and he could prevent it, and force his will on the woman so long as the child remained a minor. There are plenty of cases of abuse where it doesn't fall under the definition of legal rape, but it would still be terribly cruel to force a woman into that situation.
Oh, and use his own argument against him: if men should be able to chose when women give birth to their children, should men be able to force a woman to have an abortion? My guess his he'd say a very strong no.

Another point of his: Being "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean "pro-abortion." Being pro-choice is about recognizing that everyone should have the right to control their own lives. Most people agree that adultery (in a marriage where people have agreed to be monogamous) is morally wrong, yet that is not illegal. That's because it's part of someone's personal life. If you believe it's wrong, just don't do it.

You should definitely be able to provide stats on how the average woman who gets an abortion is already a mother. I can't think of where those are off the top of my head, but they're not hard to find.

Please point out to this guy that most abortions happen before the 12th week of pregnancy, long before the fetus is viable. And dilation and extraction abortions (aka partial birth abortions, I prefer the medical term), are, and have always been, very, very rare, only done in cases where the fetus will not survive outside the mother's womb no matter what, or when the woman's life or health is at risk. Mention that most women who get abortions (40% of women do by the age of 45, rhrealitycheck.org used this stat in a recent article) either are mothers or will have children later in life. It's not about not wanting children, it's about knowing they can't provide for a child (or another child) at that point in their lives. I desperately want to have children, but not until I can provide them with the life they deserve, and I think a whole lot of women feel that way too.

Also point out to the guy that plenty of Planned Parenthood's provide prenatal care! It's "Planned Parenthood" not "No Parenthood" for crying out loud!

And the final, main argument that I always use against people like this guy (you can find great documentation of this in a book called "Pregnancy and Power"), is that the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion has remained relatively stable, no matter what the law was on abortion at the time. That means that making abortion illegal does not stop abortion. The choice is not between abortion and no abortion. It's between safe abortions that carry much less risk to the mother's health than giving birth, and between abortions that kill women. Plain and simple. Outlawing abortion doesn't "save lives," it kills.

I would point out that making abortion illegal most likely will not prevent many women from receiving abortions. It will however make it impossible for any woman to receive a safe, legal abortion. Women with money will most likely leave the country, but many more women will be forced to go to back alley doctors. Before abortion was legalized as many as 1.2 million women were having abortions a year. (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html). Making abortion illegal will not abolish it, and will jeopardize the lives of millions of women.

I wrote a pretty long comment, which was eaten up by the internets. Shame on me for not copying it before I hit preview.

My basic suggestions were:

1. Contemplate your motivation for responding. Then decide whether to respond, and how to respond, in light of your motivation.

2. Decide which things you want to respond to. That could be all of his rambling points, or just some. (ie: you might not feel like debating whether or not we can know about history, given that we weren't there, seeing as how his argument that we can't is pretty laughable)

3. Make sure to be calm and organized in your response. I suggest outlining a response, so you can avoid the rambling that he has succumbed to.

If you need help with responses to specific arguments, I'd be glad to offer more suggestions.

wow. There's a lot to cover there... here we go!(disclaimer: my views come from the position of a woman who's had an abortion, and I'll probably go into some of that here. Sorry if I get emotional)

"with the exception of the dignity and emotional balance of the woman receiving the abortion"
There's a fallacy here in the belief that an abortion injures the dignity or emotional balance of a woman. My dignity and emotional balance would have been severely upset if I hadn't been able to have an abortion. So if he's concerned about that...maybe he should consider the other side of it.
As to his arguments about not saying that a fetus is a baby...I never denied that.
I thought of mine as a baby, and that was a major part of why I decided the way I did. If I had thought of it as a fetus, and denied that it could be a baby, I may have decided differently.

"Planned Parenthood has particularly targeted low-income, low-education areas as places to locate a "clinic""

Point out that part of the reason they've done this (if you can find proof that it's true, if not just tell him that since he has no proof it's not real valid as an argument) is because those areas are the ones that are most likely to need low-cost services. The people living there are more likely to not have the money to travel hours away to get the procedure, and can't take the time off from work for it anyway.

". Besides, if you're going to have an abortion anyway, why not be sterilized and get rid of "the problem" in the first place. You only need to be sexually viable if you actually plan on giving birth sometime."

This seems to be a contradiction. If you get sterilized (which seems to me to be permanent) then how can you 'give birth sometime' later? This makes no sense to me.

"I think someone who chooses to have an abortion has a desire to control someone's life"

yes they do. Namely, their own. They are making the choice that is best for their life at that time. A huge part of abortion rights is having the ability and the right to control your own life. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies with 'pro-lifers' who want to control every woman's life by keeping life-changing decisions out of their hands.

"Do you have data to support your view that the majority of women who receive abortions are not pressured, not promiscuous, but educated - about abortion?"

Does he have evidence that women are always educated about the choice to carry a baby to term? The dangers associated with birth, and the cost in both time and money? What impact it will have on their lives, careers, friendships?
Theres's two sides to this coin.
Besides, I can tell you that personally, I was very informed as to both of these options.
I knew that I was unable to care for a child. I knew that I would have to be a stay at home mom, and that I would have to give up my career options. I knew I would force my boyfriend to continue a job he hated to pay the bills. I knew I had no family support and would receive only expressions of disappointment from them. Is every woman who carries an unexpected pregnancy to term aware of what it will do to her life?

As to the lies they tell:
That abortion causes breast cancer
That abortion causes depression in everyone who has one.
Post-Abortion Syndrome
I'm sure there are plenty others you can find just here on this site.

"I truly believe that every human should have a right to live and decide for themselves what to make of their life."

Then he should be supporting a woman's right to choose. If abortion is made illegal, then women will be forced into choosing a medically dangerous illegal procedure, or having a child which will alter their life, whether they like it or not.

He does know that a huge percentage of pregnancies naturally abort? Though the numbers are probably much higher (it's very difficult to measure early miscarriages- indeed many women will have a natural abortion without even knowing), studies have shown that 25% of pregnancies are naturally aborted by the sixth week. And as a friend of mine pointed out, if these blastocysts and fetuses are human beings, why aren't people trying to stop miscarriage? Maybe we should make it illegal for women with diabetes, older women, and others at higher risk for miscarriage to become pregnant, because they could kill their child! (sarcasm) It's true, even a blastocyst is alive, but so are my skin cells. And when I scratch my arm *scratch scratch* I just killed about a thousand of them.
By the way, cheers to you guys for engaging in civil discourse!

I'm sure that other people will have much better things to use for you, so I'm just going to point out some of the things I saw, which hopefully helps a little! Probably you can phrase these things better than I as well.

Quotes from him in italics.

Pro-lifers are usually pro-life in many other ways as well (meaning that they do not limit their belief in life and life to the fullest). Pro-lifers want to give everyone an equal chance.

While doubtless this is true of many, it's an odd fact that many 'pro-lifers' are also pro-death penalty. Just a weird little hypocrisy. At what point does it become acceptable to take a life? Of course, the argument here is a quid pro quo, the fetus is innocent of any harm, etc., but that's always bugged me.

The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, the zygote is alive, et cetera. People ask: when does life begin? A better question is: when did it end? There is no lack of life in the reproductive process (no double entendre intended).

That would imply that simply by menstruating and not getting pregnant, we are destroying life. That also bugs me. Not to mention that millions of cells in our bodies die all the time. "Alive" and "human, intelligent life" are different. You also may want to ask if he consumes animals. Are they not also alive?

Granted, some extremists have been violent against clinicians who perform abortions,

...and they harass, belittle, shame, and occasionally attempt to physically restrain women entering them. Some clinics have even been bombed with women inside. Any instances of a CPC being blown up? I didn't think so.

[W]hen you know someone is not going to get an abortion, do you assume that the fetus is something other than human? When you have a friend who chooses to keep her baby, do you act like it's not really alive or really human until the day it is born? I doubt it.

Which is why all baby names are already picked out at conception. Okay, that's a dumb argument, but for many people, the reality of being parents starts when the baby is born and starts to cry; until then, it's this great big thing waiting to happen. The phrase is "having a baby," not "have a baby" - at least, not until after birth.

For the delivered misinformation stuff, you should find info about CPC's distributed info as opposed to PP's. Also, other places offer abortion services as part of their women's health care. If I remember correctly, there's some info on that from NARAL's site, I think it was.

I realize that you might take offense to me calling abortion "birth control".

Do you take offense to that? I don't, really. You're controlling whether you want to give birth, to be clinical about it.

I don't know what to say about his whole 50's rant thing. Sorry!

I agree that the government should not be able to get their hands on our genitalia.

This, to me, is his craziest argument. HE JUST MADE YOUR POINT. Haha.

Once again, you cannot deny that a fetus which is allowed to progress to full term uninhibited will most likely be born healthy and will thus live a life much to their own choosing.

Yes I can. Some internet research and you can, too: http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/miscarriage-rate/zm2737 is one example, but some put miscarriage rates as high as 70% - many happening before the woman is aware she is pregnant. Speaking of miscarriage, if he classifies feti (fetuses?) as human beings, should women who miscarry face charges of involuntary manslaughter? I would hope not, but if we define fetuses as human, that's part of what it means.

Whew, this got longer than I thought it would!

Finally, on a personal note, I hope I am never put in a position where I have to make a choice like that. I don't think I could ever have an abortion; if I were raped, I would want EC, and if that didn't work, I am honestly not sure what I would do. I don't think abortion should ever be taken lightly; it is quite often dangerous, in the sense that removing anything growing in your body (like a tumor) is dangerous, and it is ending a pregnancy which might very well otherwise end up as a child (disclaimer: just how I feel about ME getting pregnant; read on!). However, I think that there is no way that I can make that choice for ANYBODY else. Put restrictions on, and there will ALWAYS be an exception. There is no way to write into law every circumstance where it would be 'permissible' to have an abortion, because something else would come up. People have got to have choices. Women, especially. Pregnancy is a HUGE toil on the body, and no amount of court-ordered child support puts the male in the same position as the female. And as my last thought, pro-choice and pro-abortion are NOT the same thing, dammit. I would love to reduce abortions. Making them illegal does nothing but hurt the women who need them.

this argument: Once again, you cannot deny that a fetus which is allowed to progress to full term uninhibited will most likely be born healthy is easily refuted with some basic miscarriage statistics.

a google search brought up a few websites like the american pregnancy association:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

as well as this christian organization: http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/Miscarriage-Statistics.htm

both which explain that 10-25% of all clinical pregnancies end in miscarriage and that possibly 50-75% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. If women's bodies can choose to self-abort why can't a woman do the same thing with her brain?

and of course i love to ask anti-abortion men if they would like to ban masturbation as well, since all of those sperm are alive and have their own dna too. and we should probably do away with menstruation as well since those eggs are also alive and have dna and COULD have been babies if they were allowed to. *rolls eyes*

also there was a recent feministing post about an op-ed article very similar to this letter from a student paper at a university in idaho. the comments on the paper's own site had some great points laid out. the one i'm thinking of in particular beautifully articulated that a fetus that can't survive outside of a woman's body is no different from a parasite, and we wouldn't fault a person for removing a parasite from their bodies, would we?

My question for all people who want to make abortion illegal is this: Do you think the government should have the right to force you to donate a kidney if someone else needs that kidney to live?

It's precisely analogous, in that pregnancy puts a great strain on the body of the woman carrying the fetus, and is fatal in some small percentage of cases. Even if we consider a fetus to be a full-fledged human with all the same rights as a living, breathing person, abortion would still be legal unless we actually grant the fetus rights over those of the woman carrying it.

The argument over the legality of abortion is just that. Whether or not abortion is icky, or whether the founder of Planned Parenthood was a nice person, or, really, any of his arguments, do not touch the core issue, which is that making abortion illegal would have wide-ranging legal and practical ramifications. If he wants to seriously engage on the issue, he needs to take those on.

I noticed a few flaws in his logic as well.

First off, eggs and sperm aren't alive, based on the biological definition of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life to see the full list). Here's a few reasons why:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Last I checked, my eggs don't have the ability to change their own temperature, and they can't change their own hormone or salinity levels if my body chemistry isn't to their liking.

2. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Once again, my eggs don't breathe, and I'm pretty sure science would have discovered if our eggs were quietly eating our fallopian tubes every month on the way to the uterus. It doesn't happen.

3. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
The final "main" test of life is whether something can reproduce, and since our eggs and sperm can't make baby eggs and sperm, this once again falls through.

Neither eggs nor sperm are alive (and one could argue that a zygote is not alive either, since it cannot reproduce itself) and in fact reproduction relies on the death of both of those individual entities in order to create life. Meaning that upon fertilization both egg and sperm cease to exist, which to me is not the same as "life."

In his argument that pro-lifers are cool because they don't target women (I guess clinicians lives aren't real lives though, so that's ok and not completely hypocritical) I would ask him whether the bombs that pro-lifers set at family planning clinics know not to target women when they explode. Are these bombs super smart? Do they have amazing targeting abilities? Can we get those for the military, so that when we bomb Iraq we can avoid killing innocent civilians when we want to explode the bad guys?

The only thing I can think to say about the 1950's argument is that it seems really hypocritical to call you down for not experiencing the 50's when a paragraph above he details all the horrors that women who have abortions experience. It might be dropping all attempts at politeness, but my response would probably be, "I don't care if you have taken feminist/women's studies classes. If you haven't lived as a woman who's had an abortion, you can hardly have an opinion as to how enjoyable or horrific it was."

Realistically, I'm not under the impression that you will be able to change the mind of this person one iota, but I give you a lot of credit for trying. :) I think I would just get too infuriated by the insanity and hypocrisy of his arguments to be able to carry on any meaningful conversation.

In closing, you should tell him that "This is real life to the max," was the best line of his letter....

Re: his point about being "pro-life in many other ways" and wanting "to give everyone an equal chance", you can tell him that it's pro-choice legislators who are supporting equal opportunity by leading the charge for universal health care, day care, paid maternity leave, etc. (I think NARAL has stats on this.) By looking at it this way, you could argue that pro-life legislators are actually making it more likely that women (especially poor women) will have abortions, because without this kind of support from the government, what else *can* they do?

Everyone's giving you such good stuff already, but I'll add a few anecdotal things in relation to his 1950s comment:

One, my mother grew up during the 50s, and she watched her mother literally experience the struggle Betty Friedan describes in "The Feminist Mystique." The emergence of the counter-culture in the 60s was a direct result of the oppression of the 50s.

As to the every "fetus is a viable fetus" argument, there are some truly horrific birth defects in this world that result in enormous pain for the child for the few days or weeks s/he may live. (That might be a weak argument for this person b/c pro-lifers seem to value any kind of life over comfort or reducing suffering.)

"How could women be in some plot to ruin women's rights? " He's a college student. Explain hegemony to him. History is full of groups who failed to speak out against injustice because the ideas were too naturalized for them, and the idea of flaunting the status quo was too terrifying. The question is, how many of those Focus on the Family ladies now women who have had abortions?

I am a law student so I'm going to come at this from a legal perspective

1) If you actually read Roe v. Wade, they go through the history of anti-abortion laws in the US. Abortions have never, I repeat, never been banned because of a belief that a fetus is a person. In fact, criminal and civil law have recognized that a baby isn't a person until it takes its first breath.

Only in the past 50 years did courts push that line back to viability (meaning the baby can live outside the mother's womb. This is recognized by Roe's limits on 3rd trimester abortion. Abortions have historically been banned because they were dangerous and unsanitary. That is not the case now.

2) Even one of the most conservative justices, Justice Scalia has admitted in interviews that he believes that "person" in the legal sense is someone who is living outside the mothers womb. He only voted against Roe because he believes there is no constitutional right to privacy. I'm sure that this guy would have to agree, as most do, that there is such a right implicit in the constitution.

If there is no constitutional right to privacy, then a law banning abortions is just as constitutional as a law requiring that every woman have an abortion. I don't think that either option is appealing. Roe is only 1 case in a long line of privacy cases. Check out Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Lawrence v. Texas

3) just to sum it up, whatever our personal religious beliefs are, we live in a secular society with a separation of church and state. Until science or medicine comes to a conclusion about whether or not a fetus is a "person" any rationale applying that definition to the constitution would be based on religious doctrine alone. The fact is, there is no medical or scientific evidence that fetus's are people entitled to legal rights like the rest of us.

Touching on what janeair said, point out to him that banning or restricting abortion disproportionately affects lower-income women and families, precisely because richer women would be able to travel out of country/state to get an abortion and other women would not, and because existing waiting periods make it near impossible for women who can't miss work to have an abortion.

Tie this to his argument that PP targets minority and low-income women. (And explain that the reason that minority women have a disproportionate number of abortions is because minority women are disproportioately poor, and the way to solve this problem is not by forcing them to pay natal costs they can't afford, bear children they can't support, lose the opportunity to go to university or have a better career...)

Like other commenters have said, point out that many "pro-lifers" support the death penalty and war and that clinic bombing is never, ever pro-life no matter whose life it takes.

Child support money is not part of the man's body. If it is, there are probably many television programs and doctors that would love to speak to him.

"decide for themselves what to make of their life" - go for it.

Other possibilities:

-Re: fetus will become human/is potential human - he will become a corpse, but that does not mean it is OK, now, to bury or cremate him. He's a potential rapist, but that doesn't mean we can put him in jail now. Also re: fetus will progress on its own uninhibited - not true. The woman's got to do a shitload of work. It's not "uninhibited." It's "enabled."
-Re: founding fathers - how about liberty? We didn't declare independence because the British were killing us, after all.
-Re: opposition or not to preventative contraception - too bad for him, the major anti-abortion lobbies are against preventative contraception and sex education. It's us pro-choicers who support things that actually reduce the number of abortions.
-Re: feels pain - not true.

Also, if you want to be a bit nasty (I would, but it's your call) then you could offer him, rhetorically, the services of the paper's editor. Because his letter reeeeeeally needs one.

I didn't read through all of the comments so I don't know if anyone brought this up, but Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger. According to Wikipedia, she supported "negative eugenics" which is defined as anything from natural family planning, to abortion or sterilization. The term was vague during her time. Check the facts though, Wikipedia may not be the best source of accurate information.

Also, a story from the '50s? My grandmother's best friend was forced into an illegal abortion and died from it. She was involved with someone in the mafia and they told her that if she had the baby they would kill her and her other children. Just a point of view from the "good ole' days".

Good luck sticking it to this jerk :)

A fetus will eventually become a human given time and proper care, therefore it deserves all the same rights as a human.

I will one day become a senior citizen, given time and proper care, so can I collect social security today? (I'm only 22)

(That is not an argument I thought of myself, someone used it in a class I took about a year ago, Contemporary Moral Issues. I don't know who it was, or I would give full credit, but I feel it makes a good point.)

@ Renda

Justice Scalia was not on the Supreme Court at the time, maybe some other Justice voted against it due to privacy or perhaps he stated he would have voted against Roe v. Wade on the basis that he did not think privacy was constitutionally guaranteed.

*Disclaimer: This might sound like I'm lecturing you, I'm not. Obviously I assume you know all this. This is just a direct response to his words :)*
Re. his argument about the 50s: "if you didn't live then, you can't possibly have an opinion on it"
Try pointing out that likewise, if he's never had a womb, much less an abortion, he cannot possibly have an opinion on that either, if you must have experienced something to truly know the facts about it.
Because he doesn't know what it feels like to discover that you're pregnant and feel like there's a cancer/parasite growing inside you, just like I don't know what it was like to be a 50s housewife.
Indeed, I am glad that I am not a 50s housewife, which I may have been at the time, being the ripe old age of 22 and having discovered my pregnancy. I'd have been husbanded and babied right now.
Instead I'm at college studying a masters in womens studies with the intention of one day educating other young women and men on EVERY choice that they can make from whether to have sex to whether to have babies and whether to keep babies once they are conceived or born.
Pro-choice isn't about pro-abortion, it's about allowing women to make those *educated* choices that this person seems to be so keen on.
It's the pro-lifers who want us to less educated on the facts and terrorised into putting your body through something against your will, and possibly committing your life to someone before you're ready, either physically, emotionally or financially.
On his argument about the poor menz, my choice also took into account the fact that my partner had just applied for a PhD course, which he would have had to give up in favour of a job he hated if I had kept the baby. It was a choice for both of us. And we are glad that we had the facilities available to make the choice we did, in the best possible way and with the best possible care (thank-you BPAS and the NHS).
And on his arguments about post-abortion suffering: the only bad moments I had were when telling others and not knowing whether they would label me a murderer. I have no regrets, I have no depression, I have no desire to turn back the clock. I do, however, still feel stress when waiting to gauge other people's opinion of my choice, and I would hazard a guess that in anti-abortion communities where women like myself ARE seen as murderers that the PTSD rates are much higher than in those communities that are accepting and understanding of the need for individual consideration and choice.
So much for supporting women with "post-abortion care"= you are the devil woman let us cure you of your evil ways. I'll skip that bit, thanks.
(I understand those who say "I'm not sure I would be able to...", I used to say the same myself. But on discovering I was pregnant, I knew immediately that I wasn't ready, and knowing the statistics on children's homes and the *un*adopted children who are given up each year, and also knowing friends who have suffered in the state adoption system, I didn't want to add another being to that system, just in the same way that my choice took into account the fact that I could not necessarily give my child the life it deserved - how did I know anyone else would do better? For me, abortion was the best of three difficult paths I could have taken. I was glad I was given the choice.)

An anecdote re: educated decisions

I watched Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" that sent a pro-choice activist to live at a pro-life women's pregnancy home.

It was required of anyone who lived there to watch anti-abortion propaganda, but while there were videos and resources available about childbirth, there was no requirement or scheduled time to watch or read them. If a woman living there wanted to peruse the literature or watch the videos on childbirth, she had to make the time herself.

Also: re: Planned Parenthood

Far too many people believe Planned Parenthood offers only birth control and abortion. They are completely wrong. Planned Parenthood is comprehensive and offers pre-natal care, cancer screenings, and all aspects of reproductive health and education. It is located in low-cost areas because it is meant to provide comprehensive reproductive health care to low-income people (yes, even men). They have sliding scales and insurance to cover the uninsured. In many areas, it is the only place low-income women can go for reproductive health care. Abortion is only PART of what they offer.

Yeah, a fetus is alive. A zygote is alive. It is alive in the same way your arm or your liver or your toenail is alive.

I hated the phrase about the fetus being "allowed to progress uninhibited." Like it's just some nuisance that women carelessly get rid of even though it has minimal effect on them. Hello? It "progresses uninhibited" IN YOUR BODY!

As far as men not wanting the woman to terminate... Oh well. Go have a kid with someone else. If it were the man who didn't want children, then the woman would have to do the same. It sucks, but it's a personal issue and too individualized to project morals onto.

Many so called pro-lifers rally for women to *have the baby*.... and their pro stance ends there. Having a baby means you are required to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care for 18 years. Many pro lifers are men, who talk the talk, but do not offer anything beyond it.
Even our alleged pro life president, shows this blatant hypocrisy- in that he opposes abortion, but refuses to fund health care for impoverished children. Cuts back on funding for all the necessary support programs children being raised by a single parent need.
The worst offense, is preying on low income youth to enlist in the military to make a living, post high school.
Please don't call yourself pro life unless you are an activist for the 18 years of support needed to raise a child.
The writer used the phrase "notion of child support", and a good choice of words that is, because many men skip out on child support payments, in some cases, it is as easy as crossing a state line. Having a court of law decree the father must pay child support, and having reliable actual child support payments can be worlds apart. If the father skips out, hides money or is low income, the child goes without necessary financial support.
So indeed, it is a NOTION, a concept, but not always a reality.
A child that needs a place to live, medical care, etc.... can't wait for the courts or a deadbeat dad to get it together.
If you don't support having an abortion, don't have one, but don't make that choice for someone else.
I would add, don't make this a "liberal " issue. I'm sure plenty of conservatives have chosen to have abortions for a variety of reasons.

Just a brief thought: I'm always very cautious about using the word "human" in the abortion debate, because so many people on the pro-life side willfully conflate the noun and adjective forms. When someone asks me when I, as a pro-choicer, "think the fetus becomes human", my usual response is, "It was always (adjective) human, of course. No one claims that a human fetus is anything other than a human fetus. Just as my thumb is a human thumb, and my pancreas is a human pancreas, and a man's sperm are human sperm. But surely you don't claim any of those are persons, do you?"

The real topic is rights. A person has the right to decide to what use her body will be put. No person has the right to use another's bodily resources without that other's ongoing consent. (Anti-abortion laws thus would give a z/e/f greater rights than any person has.)

One thing I always considered was that, when we're at war, the civilians who die are "collateral damage." They're just necessary deaths for the greater good. We had to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent the war from going on and on, resulting in a higher death toll. Do you think the civilians killed in those bombings would understand that?

We will always have decent excuses for killing people.

Thank you all for the good advice. I took the route of just responding to a few of his points without nit-picking for hours (as he did.) I will keep all your comments abreast if he wishes to continue our discourse. The main point was that essentially, we were talking about two different things but using the same term "women's rights". He, being more concerned with "fetus rights", and I being infinitely more concerned with *actual* living women. I told him that this was at the root of our disagreement.

Sounds like you responded well! Obviously this is already wrapped up (or is it???) but I thought I'd add one more thing:

""How could women be in some plot to ruin women's rights? " He's a college student. Explain hegemony to him. History is full of groups who failed to speak out against injustice because the ideas were too naturalized for them, and the idea of flaunting the status quo was too terrifying. The question is, how many of those Focus on the Family ladies now women who have had abortions?"

When I read this comment I immediately thought of this great collection of anecdotes about anti-choice women and their abortions.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html