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

Ah, now we get to the core of your argument. Sex is a deviation if it's not for the purpose of child-making? So basically, sex is not for pleasure, only for babies? Gay sex is wrong, then? Or sex between infertile married couples? Laws should be based on protecting other people, not on morality. Just like drugs, gambling, and prostitution ought to be legal, so long as those activities do not hurt others. Your statement that "sex outside of it's proper context is always, in every situation, damaging and hurtful to both parties" is laughable. Many people enjoy sex before marriage and find it to be an enriching part of their relationships. Just because you don't doesn't mean they are wrong. What effect am I numb to? Orgasm? Hardly. "It is a uniue and separate human being that you happen to be hosting"--like a parasite? So you should be able to choose whether or not to play host for 9 months. Stop trying to relate my examples to murder. You and I both know the distinct differences between killing a group of cells that live within you and that you are ultimately responsible for and killing an independent person. You claim that adoption is the "only ethical choice" for parents who are unable to care for their children, but this distinctly ignores two of the possible reasons I gave for abortion. 1-Addicts cannot bring a healthy child to term, 2-Abused women cannot hide a pregnancy and then give a child up for adoption. It also assumes that there would be enough of a "market" for adopted children if abortion were suddenly banned. Rates of children being given up would sky rocket, but would rates of parents wanting to adopt also rise? Prohibition never works. Prohibition on alcohol didn't work. Prohibition on marijuana is not working. Prohibition on sex before marriage cannot and will not work. Prohibition fails. Period.Nobody is "telling kids to have sex". We're providing sexual education so that if they make that choice, they will be informed on how to be healthy and responsible. I can't believe you'd rather have them NOT be informed, on the logic that if they DON'T know how to have responsible sex that they'll simply choose not to have it. Did you bother reading the study I linked to? I'll reiterate the key points of their findings. 1-Comprehensive sex education DOES reduce rates of pregnancy and STD's, 2-Comprehensive sex education DOES NOT increase rates of teenage sexual activity, 3-Abstinence only education DOES NOT reduce rates of teenage sexual activity. So, basically, the findings were that people are going to have sex, and try as you might, we can't dictate YOUR morality to them. Tricky thing about morals, they're all relative. If people are going to have sex, and IF abstinence only education has been proven to be ineffective at reducing rates of sex or pregnancy or STD's, then why would we continue to stick to it? To appease your moral beliefs? Again, laws are not, contrary to your belief, about morals. They are about people. And so long as sex is consensual, nobody needs protecting from it. Except perhaps you, since you so obviously find offense in the act of love. I suggest this. Teach YOUR children your moral beliefs regarding sex. But for the sake of society, let's teach all children (including yours) what it means to be responsible with regards to sex. Just in case they fall off the high bar you've set for them. Wouldn't you rather they fall without HIV? Or an unwanted pregnancy?