Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

So what then, is the "the purpose for which it was designed" if not procreation? Pleasure?! Say it's not so! I would say man has a nature and that it is fixed. And it is for this reason that I strongly believe in not banning abortions and I strongly believe that abstinence only education should be replaced by comprehensive sexual education. Because part of that fixed nature of man is that each of us has impulses and desires of a sexual nature. (And those impulses and desires are not wrong.) Acting upon them is not a matter of ethics or morality. I've never understood how sexual activity came under the morality umbrella to begin with. So long as it is consensual, there's no justification. We don't analyze other types of activity for their moral fiber. Do we talk about the morality of football? The morality of swimming? The morality of sleeping? Laws, as I stated earlier, should be based on the good of society, namely not causing harm to other people, while protecting each person's individual rights to do all things that do not cause harm to others. Ethics are not fixed, else we would all have identical ethical standards. How do you account for the differences if there is to be but one ideal? LoL at the sexual revolution bringing bondage. How is safe sex prior to marriage harmful to both parties, though? If you're responsible, no transmission of STD's, no unwanted pregnancies, what is the damage you speak of? As for the life expectancy of a gay man, consider this: homosexuals are 26 times more likely to die from suicide and 87 times more likely to die from murder than heterosexuals. Which says a lot about more about tolerance than it does about lifestyle. Nonetheless, your argument is moot anyway, because homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. That's not a lifestyle choice, so it cannot be right or wrong. Would you say when you make a choice to walk barefoot you are also making the choice to host a ringworm inside of you? It's something that could be a consequence of that choice, but it's not a choice you've made. It's an effect. Similarly, impregnation is an effect of sex. Not a choice in and of itself. The choice ought to come prior to impregnation, when one can choose to prevent it through contraception. But sometimes it comes after. Nonetheless, it's up to the individual to make that choice. The examples I gave represent the reasons abortion ought to be accessible. I agree that it should not be used as birth control. I agree that we ought to reduce the number. I believe comprehensive sexual education with access to contraception is the best way to achieve that. You seem to think that just telling them not to do it and crossing our fingers is best. It's just...jaded. There are about 150,000 children up for adoption per year. I'm not sure how many adoptive couples. My point is, would adoptive couples be able to keep demand up for that many unwanted children were we to abolish abortion today? Again, let me specify. When I say "prohibition doesn't work" I mean prohibition of things that people recognize to be false laws. These would be laws regarding our bodies. Laws that tell us how we can use them (sex) and what we can put in them (drugs) do not work. People recognize the invalidity of these laws because they understand their bodies are ultimately theirs to do with what they please. Just go through the supermarket check-out and peruse the latest magazine covers. If you don't know what this does to the male mind and the way it victimizes women you are numb.Holy cow you've got to be joking! Victimizes women?! Let me start a new debate for this alone. Please visit it at http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Do_magazines_victimize_women I'm all for teaching kids what's best for them. And what's best for them are the tools to make the best decisions for themselves. And those decisions, like it or not, are ultimately up to them to make. It's naiive to believe that all it will take is a strong voice repetitively shouting the abstinence mantra in order to keep people from having premarital sex. Abstinence is fail proof. You may fail to abstain but if you are abstaining you will never get pregnant. However contraception is not so. You can also fail to use it but if you use it, it can fail and you will get pregnant. It's that simple. And this is a fine way to teach sexual education. I'm not against an abstinent-leaning program, but one that does not promote healthy sexual habits at all is dangerous. We've got to take into account those who will fail to abstain. Not doing so is heartless. As far as the Ted Bundy bit goes, I really see no bearing here. That's specifically regarding pornography, which I'd be glad to debate the merits of in another debate. Final thought:Morals are relative, which is all I'm trying to push on you. My only "push" is that you not push legislation on others based solely on your moral beliefs.