But aside from that, the audience for this article and argument is multi-fold. Yes, it has the audience that you suggest. It’s also trying to address defectors– those that see the pro-life argument and see its merits.

But regardless of your position on what the fetus is, my counter arguments hold against his primary argument…

His primary argument is “Women will seek out any way to rid themselves of the fetus, and doctors and hospitals have seen coat hanger abortions.”

My rebuttal is this: “That a person will chose to find a way does not justify us providing that way, especially if there’s a moral question there.”

It is not enough to say “the woman will abort, we have to provide her a clean environment” any more than it is to say that “a man will inject drugs, so we must give them clean needles.”

I see your point, and I’ll have to mull it through a little more– but the crux of your counter relies on the person believing something that is medically untrue (that the fetus is not a person).

If arguments like these weren’t made even if you did not think a fetus was a person you would have no reason to argue against the pro-life legislation because it would cause no negatives, but because arguments like this are made those who do not think a fetus is a person can point to these examples for reasons to argue against pro-life legislation, as it is now shown to have negatives.