Sounds like the argument is in a very weird state, then. It’s agreed that late-term abortions, which constitute .01% of abortions. So sometimes, right or wrong as it may seem, some of those .01% of abortions are done for non-medical reasons. If true, that would make me uncomfortable as well, but given this infrequency it wouldn’t go very far in proving that abortion is wrong or something, would it? Put it more simply: how many is that, really? Not many, I’d venture to say.
Diogenes is right to demand proof, and you’re still not giving it. Let me provide what I consider a parallel example (sorry if it seems tangential).
I’m an atheist, and it’s happened once or twice that I’ve dealt with the very pro-Christian, repent-or-go-to-hell crowd. It’s very easy to find sites on the web by fiercely converted ex-atheists who say things like “atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.”
I’m still an atheist and this is patently untrue (not to mention stupid), and of course there’s no proof provided.
‘But what motivation does this person have for lying?’ one might ask. For one, the writer is an interested (not unbiased) party, even though one wonders why he says something untrue when you’d think individual truth would suffice.
I hope that made sense. My point is that whether or not you know what an individual’s motives for lying might be, that doesn’t change the untruth of the statement. People can find or make up motivations and reasons to do anything. Actual proof is called for.