There is no actual debate, because

The debate of abortion is not a normal, formal debate structure.

The pro-lifers are against abortion. That is their argument in total.

The pro-choicers are not FOR abortion, they are for the CHOICE to have an abortion.

When there is no clear pro and direct con, then the debate is not about one subject. The debate is about two different subjects.

It's the same thing as saying:

Pro-Life says a banana is yellow

Anti-life would say the banana is NOT yellow

However:

Pro choice does not care what color the banana is, and really has no argument with it being yellow. But they want the right to call the banana purple if they so desire.

Does that make sense? If you have no direct "pro" and "con" how can you argue something?

The biggest argument we've heard, when a pro choicer discusses "choice" is the fact the fetus does not have a choice. But that has nothing to do with an adult human wanting to have a choice. It is entirely two separate entities, and two different ideals.

How can you deny someone's desire to protect the inalienable right over their own body? You can't, it would be illogical to do so. However, that is what this argument is about, to take that freedom away.

So we are back to two different arguments, on a parallel path. No wonder there can be no right answers, when paths do not even intertwine....or do they?

Who can say that there is a clear pro and con to this debate?