One of my pet peeves is Bad Pro-choice Arguments. I'm of the opinion that Bodily rights is the only one almost anyone should be using in almost any situation.
One "argument" usually seen in snark comment or bumper sticker form is the "don't like abortion, don't have one" retort.
I HATE it. It adds literally nothing to the conversation.
This phrase encodes a fallacy, a strawman. In order for an argument to actually refute an opponent, it must engage the central premise of the opponent's argument. This phrase does not do that.
What is the central premise of the anti-choice argument? Basically that abortion is (unjustified killing akin to) Murder. Now abortion isn't legally considered murder, but they think it ought to be.
So to engage an anti-choicer, you need to show why it shouldn't be considered like murder. The most common ways to do this are to talk about how it isn't a person or why the fetal removal is justified. Anything else (including arguments from practicality) does not engage the central premise.
So, in effect, you are strawmanning their position by acting like they're considering abortion a mere preference when they're making a moral/legal claim.
I compare it to "don't want to pray in school? Just don't bow your head". It completely misses the point, just like this does.
EDIT: As my friend Jonathan Fernandes just reminded me, "Don't like Slavery, don't have slaves."