"Pro-life slogan #14: Banning abortion discriminates against poor & ethnic women.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Clarification: Abortion is not a 'good' that will improve the lives of women.
(2) Clarification: Pro-abortionists deliberately target minority women!
(3) Clarification: Abortion itself is a racist institution.
Pro-abortionists continually allege that, if abortion in criminalised, only rich women will be able to kill their unborn children. So what? 
Wealth and power have always made breaking the law easier. The rich will always be able to afford cocaine and other illegal drugs, even if it costs a thousand dollars per ounce. Should we then subsidise dangerous drugs for the poor? Does the inability to purchase the very finest crack cocaine make the poor a class of victims?
Of course not! Abortion is not a 'Good Thing'. With this 'poor folks' 
argument, the pro-abortionists are once again begging the question by making a basic false assumption, ie., Abortion s a Good Thing. They are trying to paint the poor as 'victims' who would be deprived of a 'basic human right'.
Abortion Itself is a Racist Institution. Black women in the USA obtain abortions at more than twice the rate of White women. And their fatality rate from 'safe and legal' abortion is four times that of White women, as shown in Chapter 13 of The Facts of Life. What pro-abortionists really want in many cases is not only 'safe and legal' abortion, but also a reduction in the number of poor and non-White people in this country. In fact, Australia's own Family Planning Association (now FPA Health) was originally known as the Racial Hygiene Association - a history they proudly acknowledge! This is entirely in keeping with the philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who desired 'A race of throroughbreds'.
For more than a thousand lengthy pro-eugenics and other quotes by Margaret Sanger and other authors from The Birth Control Review, see the Pro-Life Library Compact Disc. The Library CD also contains many racist quotes by modern-day pro-abortionists in 'anti-life quotes' in the 'RST' directory.

Pro-abortion slogan #15: Woman's body, woman's choice! Keep your laws off my body! Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Clarification: The pregnant woman has already reproduced, participating in the creation of an entirely separate being.
(2) Parallelism: If an unborn child is a part of the mother because it is inside her, does being inside a room make us part of the room?
(3) Clarification: How can a male child be a part of a female mother?
Whose Body? Pro-lifers agree that a woman indeed has the right to control her own body. However, the right to privacy and control over one's body in no way implies the right to destroy another person's body. And a woman has already procreated when she has concieved. The only question that remains is whether or not she will kill.
It is true, of course, that the baby is inside the mother's body, but this no more makes it a part of her body then being inside a car makes one a part of the car. Most pro-abortionists will then arge that the baby is totally dependent upon the mother. They imply that this allows the mother the 'right' to dispose of her baby. Use parallelism to demonstrate that the pro-abortionist is saying that people have the right to dispose of those who are dependent upon them - such as newborn babies, the ill and elderly.
An analogous situation involves astronauts in space who are totally dependent upon their vessel for everything - air, water, food, etc. If they left the vehicle unprotected, they would be nonviable and die in seconds. Yet no thinking person would argue that astronauts are a part of their space vehicle, and as such, are disposable! If the baby were part of the woman's body, it should bear the same characteristics as the mother. 
Yet cnsider these undeniable facts: All mothers are obviously female yet half their children are male; The mother and baby frequently have different blood types; Every cell in the mother's body has a set of chromosomal characteristics that is entirely distinct from every cell in the baby's body."

“Pro-abortion slogan #16: We don’t know when life begins. The fetus is just potential life.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Extrapolation/Clarification: So when does life begin, in your opinion? And how can you prove your assertion?
(2) Clarification: The burden of proof should be on those who want to kill unborn babies, not those who want to defend them.
(3) Refutation of the ‘potential life’ slogan in a three-step process (see below).
This is a truly contemptible slogan. What this slogan really means is, `I don’t care when life begins!` After all, if a person is uncertain whether or not an action will take human life, he will refrain from taking that action. Our society does not allow behavior that may take life, even if the risks are small. We are not allowed to shoot a rifle in the direction of a freeway just because human life might not be taken. And we have many local laws that forbid smoking in crowded areas, because second-hand smoke may be injurious to others! In matters of public safety, we always err on the side of life!
Pro-lifers will often encounter pro-abortionists who assert that `We don’t know when life begins` and then, when pressed, will say that `Life begins at birth`. Ask him or her how the two are compatible: How do they know that life begins at birth if they don’t know when life begins?
Refute the ‘potential life’ slogan in a simple three-step process: (1) establish that ‘potential life’ represents a class of entities that simply do not exist (2) show that the fetus is not dead (3) conclude, by elimination, that it must therefore be alive.
Every entity on the face of the earth, animate or inanimate, is either ‘alive’ or ‘not alive’ (‘not alive’ means that an entity was either previously alive or never alive). Bacteria, cattle, and people are alive. Clouds, rocks, and corpses are not alive. There is no ‘in-between’ term, because either an entity possesses the spark of life or it does not. If the unborn baby were dead, it would not be growing, and the natural miscarriage process would occur. Therefore, abortion would not be necessary!

Pro-abortion slogan #17: The fetus isn’t really human.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Parallelism: This degrading slogan is the basis of all oppression – of women, ethnic minorities etc. You have to dehumanize a class of human beings before you can exploit or kill them. This is exactly what you are doing with this slogan.
(2) Clarification: Prove that the unborn child is not human. Once again, the onus is upon the person who wants to kill unborn children to prove this.
(3) Parallelism: The Nazis applied exactly this same fatal ‘logic’ to the Jews. How is this any different?
Geneticists and biologists define a ‘human being’ as a member of the genus Homo Sapiens by the most fundamental and reliable measurement imaginable – his or her chromosomal characteristics. Take any cell from and unborn baby and any microbiologist can tell you that it is human by examining its chromosomes. Perhaps the pro-abortionist who uses this slogan is a National Enquirer enthusiast – you know, `Woman Raped by Aliens, Gives Birth to 26 Monsters` - but, in reality, no human woman has ever actually given birth to anything other than a human being.
A pro-abortionist might assert that ‘humanity’ is a progressive acquisition instead of a fixed biological quality, i.e. one becomes human gradually as one is accepted into the ‘human family’. In other words, at some undefined point in time, an unborn child ‘crosses the line’ and becomes human. The purpose of this nonsense is obvious: As long as unborn children are anything less than 100 percent human, they are equal to something that is not human in the least, and can easily be disposed of.
This argument has no foundation in biology – or in logic. If one begins with a human sperm and a human egg, what else can the product be except human? Nobody follows this line of ‘reasoning’ when they talk about any other living creature. Nobody speaks of the progressive chimpanzification of a chimpanzee, because nobody has a vested interest in pushing a social agenda involving the slaughter of chimpanzees.”

"Pro-abortion slogan #18: The fetus isn't a person.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Parallelism: This slogan is the basis of all oppression. You have to
dehumanise or take away the 'personhood' of a class of human beings before
you can exploit or kill them. This is exactly what you are doing with this
(2) Clarification: Prove that the unborn child is not a person. Once
again, the onus is upon the person who wants to kill unborn children to
prove this.
Some anti-life groups and individuals acknowledge that unborn children are
alive and are human, but still deny that they are persons. This is a
desperately dangerous attitude. When we acknowledge that we are killing
human beings - for whatever reason - but deny them personhood, literally
no one is safe! The Nazis fell into this trap. They acknowledged only that
they were destroying 'human weeds' and 'life not worth living', and
officially classified their victims as 'non-persons'.
The slavers also fell into this trap. They acknowledged the obvious life
in their slaves (after all, dead slaves can't work), and their obvious
humanity (other species weren't intelligent enough to follow orders), but
drew the line at their personhood. Slaves were, according to the United
States Sumpreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, officially
It is easy to predict where this line of reasoning inevitably leads. To
grant life and humanity to an individual, but then withhold his
personhood, is the most powerful tool of opression and genocide.
Inconvenient and (almost) invisible unborns are the easiest to dispose of,
so they are the first to be eliminated. The killing ground has now
expanded from the uterus to private hospital rooms and out-of-the-way
nursing homes. Finally, entire classes of 'imperfect' human beings will
lose their personhood because they don't measure up to the standards of
the decision-makers. Don't chuckle at these predictions. This process has
happened before and if we are not vigilant and fearless in battle, it will
inevitably happen again!

Pro-abortion slogan #19: We're not 'pro-abortion'. We're 'pro-choice'.
Summary of the Pro-Life Response.
(1) Parallelism: You can only be 'pro-choice' if the choices are all
ethical. You can never support an immoral or unethical choice.
(2) Refutation: If you're so 'pro-choice', then why do all major
'pro-choice' groups support, either actively or with their silence, the
forced abortion program in China?
(3) Clarification: If you're so 'pro-choice', then why do you support
forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions? Do you help women carry
pregnancies to term like we do, or are you committed to only one choice -
Pro-abortionists prefer the term 'pro-choice' because they know that the
word 'ABORTION' conjures up vivid pictures of a bloody, cowardly act of
outright slaughter, and so they desparately dodge the much more accurate
term 'pro-abortion'. The major pro-abortion groups have an ideal self
image that they would like to project for the public: That of benevolent,
neutral observers passively monitoring abortion from the political
sidelines, bereft of any relevant ideology or interests. If this is true,
why are they all pushing abortion so hard?
Pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning
Association (now FPA Health) insist that others, even those who object to
abortion, pay for them with their tax dollars. Is this 'pro-choice'?
Furthermore, not one so-called 'pro-choice' group has ever condemned
China's policy of forced abortions, forced sterilisation and mandatory
birth control.
The most certain way to refute the 'pro-choice' slogan is to ask the
pro-abortionist what he does to help mothers carry their babies to term.
After all, 'pro-choice' implies support for all of the choices the mother
might make. If the pro-abortionist is an activist whose efforts are
entirely dedicated towards making sure abortion is 'safe and legal', then 
her actions are not consistent with her words."

    Source: geocities.com/sydprolife