Why Abortion and Not Prostitution?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jet_Engine1

Why is Abortion legal, or more like downright demanded, but I still can't sell a kidney? Its in MY body, right? Its just a "cluster of cells", right? There isn't even any special rooms in the hospitals with teams of staff tasked with keeping kidneys "alive"....

So whats the deal?

Because a market for donated organs would ensure that only those with money receive transplants

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Because a market for donated organs would ensure that only those with money receive transplants

Except by definition, an organ one wishes to sell (while alive) is not donated in the first place. It's "in use" by that individual.

An organ that is owned by a decedents family is an asset of that family, like any other posession. Unless you are of the view that your dead body is owned by the public at-large, and should be confiscated at their desire and over your families wishes.

Nothing would prohibit continued donations as they exist today if a market existed. There would just be a motivation to sell instead of donate.

Still, this gets far afield of my intention with this thread, which is a specific comparison of the basic rights of the individual that permits abortion (and sex for money if it's videotaped), but bars sex for money if there are no recording devices.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Except by definition, an organ one wishes to sell (while alive) is not donated in the first place. It's "in use" by that individual.

An organ that is owned by a decedents family is an asset of that family, like any other posession. Unless you are of the view that your dead body is owned by the public at-large, and should be confiscated at their desire and over your families wishes.

Nothing would prohibit continued donations as they exist today if a market existed. There would just be a motivation to sell instead of donate.

Still, this gets far afield of my intention with this thread, which is a specific comparison of the basic rights of the individual that permits abortion (and sex for money if it's videotaped), but bars sex for money if there are no recording devices.

Does that mean you can get a hooker as long as you video it? Loophole?

[TheMikeIsHot]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Because a market for donated organs would ensure that only those with money receive transplants

That and the country would be full of ugly dudes selling kidneys for fuk money.

Prostitution should be highly regulated but legal IMO.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by TheMikeIsHot

That and the country would be full of ugly dudes selling kidneys for fuk money.

Prostitution should be highly regulated but legal IMO.

why "highly" regulated? I would think other than ensuring only adults participate and the participants don't spread disease, little other regulation would be required.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by FF2®

this is the silliest comparison. The 2 are not related whatsoever.

Really? Fill in the blanks.


Abortion should be legal because: ________

This rational does not apply to prostitution because: ________

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

why "highly" regulated? I would think other than ensuring only adults participate and the participants don't spread disease, little other regulation would be required.

Just the usual OSHA Regs. and Anti-Slavery/Sweatshop type stuff already on the books for other professions I'd think.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Axil

Really? Fill in the blanks.


Abortion should be legal because: ________

This rational does not apply to prostitution because: ________

1. It's a private medical procedure. It should be legal.

2. Prostitution is a business transaction between two adults, a service in exchange for money. Similar to massage. It should be legal.

No relation to each other.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by FF2®

1. It's a private medical procedure. It should be legal.

2. Prostitution is a business transaction between two adults, a service in exchange for money. Similar to massage. It should be legal.

No relation to each other.

I think if you break the argument down into smaller points you might begin to see a relationship.

Why should a private medical procedures be legal? The common argument involves the rights of an individual to control one's own body.

Your argument for prostitution is not convincing. There are plenty of business transactions between two adults that should be illegal. Why should this particular one be legal? Again i think it would come down to ownership and the right to sell the services of one's own body.

Moral consistency and legality don't always have a lot to do with each other. However, i believe Warfish is correct. The contention is not that abortion and prostitution are the same, or even similar. It is (if i am understanding him correctly) That arguments for abortion necessitate support for legalized prostitution if you wish to be consistent.

That said, i suspect you have been right when you made the point earlier, about the cross section of people who support abortion and oppose prostitution being a small one.

[fidelioion]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

As long as it is a transaction made between two consenting adults, I have no problem with legal prostitution. Just don't do it on the streets. Should order it like a pizza.

agreed.

I don't think you'll find many Pro choice people claiming otherwise.

In fact it should be legalized and regulated, therefor better protecting the women and stopping child abuse and women NOT actually doing out of choice.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

I think if you break the argument down into smaller points you might begin to see a relationship.

Why should a private medical procedures be legal?

A lengthy reply to It is rarely worth the effort.

This case is no different.

A "private medical procedure" is also a "business transaction between two adults". The two are one and the same.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A lengthy reply to It is rarely worth the effort.

This case is no different.

A "private medical procedure" is also a "business transaction between two adults". The two are one and the same.

No.

They're not.




Sent from a phone using an app

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by FF2®

1. It's a private medical procedure. It should be legal.

2. Prostitution is a business transaction between two adults, a service in exchange for money. Similar to massage. It should be legal.

No relation to each other.

They're both sins. The political party that wants to merge religion and state is opposed to both its in the platform. That's the relation.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

They're both sins. The political party that wants to merge religion and state is opposed to both its in the platform. That's the relation.

lol

Bingo.

"Sins"


The Super Christy Party lost and now the butthurt is reaching inflamed anus proportions.

[Raug]

Originally Posted by FF2®

1. It's a private medical procedure. It should be legal.

2. Prostitution is a business transaction between two adults, a service in exchange for money. Similar to massage. It should be legal.

No relation to each other.

The times are indeed strange when you are the voice of reason.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Just curious, how can one support abortion rights (my body, my choice, state has no right to decide for me what she does with her body, etc) but NOT equally support the right of women to choose to engage in sex for money, i.e. prostitution?

In both cases, it's is 100% use of a womans body, made by the woman in question.

What would then be the rational argument by a Pro-Choice Supporter AGAINTS legalization of prostitution as a protected federal right, same as abortion?

It's not my body my choice it's competing interest in the first trimeseter. A limited right.

Society has every right to regulate commerce.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Axil

I think if you break the argument down into smaller points you might begin to see a relationship.

Why should a private medical procedures be legal? The common argument involves the rights of an individual to control one's own body.

Your argument for prostitution is not convincing. There are plenty of business transactions between two adults that should be illegal. Why should this particular one be legal? Again i think it would come down to ownership and the right to sell the services of one's own body.

Moral consistency and legality don't always have a lot to do with each other. However, i believe Warfish is correct. The contention is not that abortion and prostitution are the same, or even similar. It is (if i am understanding him correctly) That arguments for abortion necessitate support for legalized prostitution if you wish to be consistent.

That said, i suspect you have been right when you made the point earlier, about the cross section of people who support abortion and oppose prostitution being a small one.

If you want to get into REASONS why certain things are crimes you are going to open a can of worms that cant really be discussed in such a limited forum.

Why is a handjob for money illegal but a massage is not? (whats a little sperm between friends, AMIRITE?)

Why is pot illegal and booze is not?

Why is MAA allowed, but 2 guys fighting is not?

You are trying to shoehorn MY opinion into "The common argument involves the rights of an individual to control one's own body." And I just don't see it that way. Thats a silly argument. Hey, suicide is still illegal right?

Simply because SOME people use that logic does lead to the conclusion that abortion and prostitution are somehow related.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

They're both sins. The political party that wants to merge religion and state is opposed to both its in the platform. That's the relation.

So it masturbation.

How can anyone who is against abortion and prostitution support masturbation?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A lengthy reply to It is rarely worth the effort.

Hey you know what? **** you. You're such a baby.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

They're both sins. The political party that wants to merge religion and state is opposed to both its in the platform. That's the relation.

Which side is it again that pushes for universal health care based on our "moral obligation" to help the less privileged and man's "right" to it?

So funny how much the congregation of The Church of Liberalism hate religion.