You're right, as usual, but the search of fallacies isn't especially associated with INTPs.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of INTPs here don't even know what a real "strawman" fallacy is, they just use the term inappropriately and for every purpose. It's just a standard, pedantic (but ignorant) way to say they disagree with you. Epistemological figures aren't that easy to understand or master, unless, like you said, you had been professionally trained to recognize them.
And if you ask them the difference between a deduction, an abduction, an induction or a transduction, most of them won't know how to answer it, unless they google it and try to mimick knowledge they don't really possess.
Remember that most young INTPs are just posers.
So it seems that the general conclusion of this thread is that
anyone, including anyone who claims to be INTP, is annoying when they misuse fallacies. A lot of work for nothing, eh?
A strawman fallacy basically means 'missing the point and steaming way past it.' If you said "Abortion is wrong" and I went off on you about how you shouldn't be allowed to control my body and that taking away my rights is far more wrong than abortion, that would be a straw man, because although it's generally implied that people want to stop others from doing things they consider wrong, you never said anything to indicate that this is true for you.
I find that people who accuse others of attacking straw men are generally correct in doing so; it's just that they are often guilty of the same problem, and the one so accused generally won't respond to the accusation by reframing their perceptions.
Your example was unclear, and I still feel that you remain confused about the fallacy as it is conventionally understood. Committing the straw man fallacy has little to do with either unwarranted assumptions per se or, "'missing the point and steaming way past it'". To commit it is to do something quite specific, viz. what I mentioned in my previous post, or else something closely akin to this.
Helios is right. Your example is not a correct demonstration of a straw man fallacy. It's a red herring; the fallaciousness has more to do with irrelevance than it does with misrepresentation. It's kind of a "two wrongs make a right," which is a sub-fallacy in the red herring family.
In your example you have:
Person A: Abortion is wrong.
Person B: Taking away the right to control one's own body is more wrong than abortion. Therefore abortion is not wrong.
The argument is fallacious because it is irrelevant. Abortion could still be wrong even if it were legal. Furthermore, even if we accept that it is somehow
more wrong to take away one's right to control their own body than it is to abort a fetus, that does not mean that the latter is not still wrong.
A straw man argument, by contrast, happens when one debater reduces the argument of their opponent to a more simplistic (or extreme) version and then proceeds to argue against that version. In other words, a stronger argument is made into a weaker one and then attacked.
If I were to reformulate your example into an actual straw man, it might go like this:
Person A: While women have an undeniable right to control what goes on within(out) their own bodies, that does not mean that they have a right to kill other humans. Since a fetus is a human, abortion is wrong.
Person B: Abortion is not wrong. The government has no right to control how women live their lives or use their bodies.
The key distinction to be made here is that the straw man argument weakens the original argument in order to make it easier to attack, whereas the red herring derails the original argument in order to evade the direction in which it was headed.