Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Well we've covered a lot of ground. Let me see if I can tie it all together for you; knowing that there is a difference between proof and persuasion.What do abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography(including soft porn, the kind found in supermarket checkout lanes) and Ted Bundy all have in common? What is the one unifying thread that ties them all together? They all devalue human life by reducing it to something less than what it is. You agree that man has a nature and it is fixed. Therefore there is a way in which mankind ought to function. A deviation from that norm is therefore dehumanizing. Let me explain.Abortion; Renders the human a non-human and therefore it can be disposed of when an individual doesn't want it.Premarital sex: views other people as objects to be used for ones own personal pleasure and then discarded when no longer wanted.Homosexuality: An expression of self love. Using another person to express ones love of self and then discarding that person when they no longer please you. Pornography: The portrayal of people as objects of sexual fulfillment. People are viewed as objects to be used for personal pleasure and then discarded when you are done with them. Soft porn: does the same as pornography but in a more subtle form; very deceiving since it appears harmless.Ted Bundy; Became convinced through pornography that people were something that you used to bring pleasure to yourself and then disposed of . Do you see the pattern. reduce the person to an object to be used, use the person and then discard them. At the core of everyone of these is love of self. Use other people to get what I want and when I'm done with them I move on.Does the idea of using people like objects bother you at all? It does me. That's why I oppose all these things.Final thoughts:football does have morality as do all sports, it's called the rules of the game. There's a way you play that makes it football and a way that makes it no longer football.Pragmatism is is a poor method for law since it has no way of telling what the good is. Also do a word study on the etymology of the word ethic and tell me what you come up with. Because I may be mistaken but I thought ethics (ethos) were fixed standards and morality (mores)were changing standards.Giving ones self over to passion is to be ruled by passion and no longer reason; that's bondage to be controlled by your emotions and not your mind. If homosexuals don't choose to be that way, why then can so many walk away from that lifestyle and never go back. Their high suicide rate is because of people like you who tell them they can't change when they really want to. That leads to depression and eventually suicide. That's not a very loving thing to do.On moral relativism; if that's true then it's just your personal preference and why should I like what you do. About legislation: what else do you base law on other than what you believe to be right. But why is it OK to base them on your morals and not mine?I think the state should remain neutral on sex ed. After all it is the parents responsibility, not the states. Because when the state does it, they are pushing their morality on others who don't agree with it and using my money to do it. And that is wrong.About Abortion legislation, which this debate is all about. The state has already ruled on this issue, murder is illegal and should be. Roe vs Wade simply stripped a whole class of people protection under that law and denied them rights we all enjoy. So again the question on abortion is; what is it? If it's not human, no justification is necessary. If it is human than no justification is adequate. So I say, it ain't a chicken. Humans produce humans. Therefore no reason you gave for abortion is adequate.Also I like the idea of your debate; I'll be sure to weigh in on it when I get a chance.