Trump's arguments on abortion rely heavily on misrepresenting the pro-choice stance through weak man fallacies and fearmongering about late-term and post-birth abortions, while deflecting direct questions about his policy positions.

He makes some valid points about the debate being returned to states for the people to vote on, but undermines them with hasty over-generalizations and whataboutism attacks on Harris instead of substantively addressing criticisms.

1. ad hominem • Trump makes personal attacks on politicians associated with Harris, starting with Tim Walz:

And her vice presidential pick, which I think was a horrible pick, by the way for our country, because he is really out of it.

This statement attacks Harris' running mate in a way that is unrelated to the argument about abortion rights, constituting an ad hominem fallacy. Additional, Trump says:

I think probably her boss, if you call him a boss, he spends all his time on the beach...

 This attacks and insults Biden in an irrelevant personal jab, rather than addressing the arguments made by Harris.

2. weak man • Trump sets up and attacks an extremely implausible, fringe position that virtually no pro-choice advocate holds:

They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby.

Even if some former governor held this view, it would not be representative of Harris nor of the pro-choice position at large.

Trump misrepresents the opposing view to an absurd extreme to make it easier to criticize.

3. hasty generalization • Trump makes an overly broad generalization that every single legal scholar of both parties wanted the abortion issue returned to the states:

Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote.

Though a number of legal scholars have criticized Roe v. Wade, including even some liberal scholars, it is not the majority of them, let alone all. And some of those who criticized it did not necessarily want the matter "returned to the states." Trump's assertion is therefore a greatly exaggerated claim that does not account for variations within those groups, and oversimplifies a complex legal debate.

4. tu quoque • Trump and Harris both deflect questions about clearly stating their positions on abortion limits and bans by accusing the other side of also not being clear on their stance. ​

TRUMP: ...will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month? Would you do that? Why don't you ask her that question --

HARRIS: Why don't you answer the question would you veto [a national abortion ban]?

Instead of directly answering and clarifying their own positions, they attempt to turn it around on the other person by claiming a lack of clarity and demanding they answer first. It becomes a recursive cycle of avoiding the original questions through reciprocal accusations, which amounts to the tu quoque (or "what about you?") fallacy of responding to a criticism with a similar counter-criticism. Neither candidate ever answers the question posed to him or her in this exchange.