A disputable claim is when a claim is easy to offer contrary evidence, as it evidently states in its name. It is a disputable claim due to the very definition of what is human. The mother and the foetus are forcibly at two very different stages of biological development. We have to acknowledge the possibility that the foetus may not be "human" by definition. If the foetus is unable to live outside the constraints of the womb and live in the environment of "humans" then there is a clear differentiation. By stating that it's either the mother's rights or foetal rights, the authors commit a bifurcation, an option of two choices when in reality there are others5. As much as they try to persuade the audience that it is simply black and white, the topic on the abortion rights is much more complex than argued. .
"Because of this the abortion issue involves all modern societies in basic questions of political principle." The authors commit another fallacy in the aforementioned phrase. The very use of the words "modern societies" creates vagueness which then turns this sentence into a refutable claim. The definition of vagueness comes from the lack of clarity in the meaning or application. We are left to question which "society" the authors are referring to. By their lack of clarification, one could assume that all societies are subjected to the same abortion issue. However as we all know, there are many societies who are still intolerable to the very idea of abortion and find no question in their beliefs. Who is to say that those communities (or societies) are not modern? The author causes great confusion with his lack of explication of his usage of modern.
"The building of this system has depended on the struggle and courage of many, and was fundamentally founded on the Biblical assumption that human beings are the children of God. For this reason, everybody should be properly protected by carefully defined rights.