Abortion is an act that is not good, its not right, but it is justified. I stand here as a neutral ground to both sides, the middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice. I am willing to debate with either side because I disagree with them both. Abortion is an act of ceasing a life to be born into existence, which in my book is not technically killing, but it is still preventing a life from being born. I do not know what to call it, but it is not murder.
Pro-life: It is a justifiable act because you have to look at the reasons that usually abortions are considered. They are usually considered because of rape, or parents do not have enough money to afford the child, or it is the child of a mere teenager. And plenty of other reasons. We live in a world where so many bad things can happen, and the cause of pregnancy can most certainly be the result of a number of things. And mind you, not all abortions are justified, but some are. You cannot ban all abortions for being immoral to your set of beliefs just because a single abortion was made on terrible grounds or it doesn't match YOUR set of beliefs.
Pro-choice: On the other hand, abortion is a morally bad thing to be considered. Whether it be justified or not, at the end of the day, it is still the prevention of a child to be born. A child that has the chance to live taken away, and it can very well be a selfish act. Not all decisions of abortion are made on good-natured grounds, and nor is abortion itself good. It is a terrible event, and most likely even the mothers who have to go through it feel the same way, because a child of their self is being denied access into this world, just by fate of circumstance.
I know that I am likely going to attract both sides of the huge political parties; republicans and democrats, and I know they will likely be upset with me. But that is why. I believe there is a neutral ground, and I invite being proved wrong. So good luck to whoever the opposition shall be.
Pro's "neutral ground" is an interesting position, which is why I will accept this debate despite not having a particularly strong interest in the topic. I do not agree that Abortion is a terrible act, though it is perhaps a bit financially irresponsible, as contraception are readily available at hand. Every cell in my body is alive, but I do not particularly get angry over it if I happen to kill some of them off doing whatever that I do. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to call the destruction of a few cells murder or something of the like. I understand that pro-lifers argue that life begins at conception, but if that is so, they should take into consideration that women naturally flush out fertilized eggs during their period . Each of these eggs have a potential to become sapient human beings, but nature and chance play their game and only the "fittest(sometimes just the luckiest)" survive. It would be silly to say that this is a terrible act or anything immoral, as this is a natural bodily function. Now, aborting a fetus at its various stages becomes more complex of an issue, but there are already laws in place to protect fetuses at a certain stage of development. And I agree with these laws, as it hardly seems moral to kill something that is almost a baby, simply on the virtue that it is still in the womb. However, most abortion cases are not like this. They are generally performed when the fetus has no fetal viability. That said, the brain is developed around the 3rd gestational week along with the heart and other vital organs, but that does not necessarily suggest that the embryo has any sort of consciousness. In fact, according to neuroscientist Christof Koch, even a born baby does not have consciousness (self-awareness) . That said, I'm not saying that it is okay to kill babies because they do not have self-awareness (please don't misinterpret it that way!). I am merely pointing out that if a fully developed baby has no consciousness, an embryo/fetus at ~12 weeks (the common abortion time) has even less its capabilities/faculties, meaning it virtually has no capabilities/faculties at all. This brings us to the question of potential, which is a silly argument, as potential works both ways. Forcing a baby to be born/had in an unsafe/hostile environment with a neglectful parent is just as likely a potential (if not more) than its counterpart. We hardly have enough orphanages to account for the current orphans, imagine if every aborted fetus was to be filled in an orphanage instead. Also, the potential to be human does not make something human. That is like stating that I am the president because I have the potential to be so. Overall, I do not believe that abortion is terrible or evil. It is at best a regrettable, irresponsible choice (having unprotected sex) that results in taxpayers/parents having to cover the bill.
I believe the resolution is negated. As a neutral ground is already pretty much a pro-choice position. And pro-choice is hardly advocating killing babies but simply aborting potential ones from being born. And as fertilized eggs flushed down the toilet every menstrual period has/had the same potential of being born, the argument of potential is suspect at best.
I look forward to my opponent's response.