Argument from ownership: “This slave/baby is my property/body. You can't tell me what to do with it.”
Argument from privacy: "No one is forcing you to have slaves/abortions. Mind your own business!"
Argument from superseding rights: “My property/body rights come before the rights of a slave/fetus.”
Argument from inevitability: “Slavery/abortion has been around for thousands of years, it’s never going away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it.”
Argument from pseudoscience: “Slaves/fetuses aren’t really people. They aren’t like us. Look at them — they’re physically different, therefore we are human and they are not.”
Argument from socioeconomics: “If slavery/abortion ends, most of these slaves/babies will end up on the street without a job.”
Argument from the courts: “Slavery/abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing it.”
Argument from the Bible: “Slavery/abortion isn’t specifically condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so.”
Argument from faux-compassion: “Slavery/abortion is in the best interest of Africans/babies. The world can be a cruel place. It’s best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved/killing them.”
Argument from the assumed hypocrisy of the other side: "You say you want to end slavery/abortion, but you don't want to live with freed blacks/adopt unwanted babies yourself. Therefore your position is invalid."
- https://www.dailywire.com/news/26097/wal...matt-walsh
"Abortion feeds a narrative that women are victims. That they have no control over their sexual impulses."
And they promulgate their policies largely on lies.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARAL — later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world....responsible for 75,000 abortions.
...
[in his words]
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.
We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
...
We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favor of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.
...
A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. [source]
"Before 1989 abortion was legal in Chile; after 1989 it was illegal....A groundbreaking study of abortion in Chile published last week in the scientific journal PLoS One found that illegal abortion is not associated with maternal mortality. At a time when access to legal abortion is deemed absolutely necessary for women’s health, this shatters long-standing assumptions." - https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie...um=twitter
"After abortion was prohibited, the MMR [maternal mortality ratio] decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (−69.2%). The slope of the MMR did not appear to be altered by the change in abortion law." - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0036613