The right that I was talking about was clearly abortion, not murder, since it was a answer to your question of whether abortion was "a right that anyone should

The right that I was talking about was clearly abortion, not murder, since it was a answer to your question of whether abortion was "a right that anyone should have?". I even went through the trouble of pointing out that "murder" is a legal construct, not a right, whereas killing another human being is, clearly, considered a right. This is an important context to consider in the question of abortion, because "if a fetus is human then abortion is murder" (essentially your argument) is a false dichotomy, just as "does the right to murder exist" is a contradiction in terms. I think I understand the other side's view more than you understand mine, since you seem to be arguing against some strawman anti-abortionist living rent free in your head, and I at least put in a good faith attempt. And as far as approaches go, attacking the person instead of their arguments will doubtless score you points on the internet, but it won't convince anyone of anything. But I guess you're correct that I can't argue with results. You don't have to convince anyone when you can just force the issue through a cabal of unelected judges by fiat.