Why Abortion and Not Prostitution?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

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

An Fetus would have to have rights for their to be competing interests/rights.

A fetus does not have rights, hence cannot have it's own interests, so that is an invalid claim.

The termination of that fetus is also a business transaction, i.e. commerce. In a nation that defines choosing not to buy healthcare as commerce, or choosing not to grow wheat as commerce, you're going to argue that having a medical procedure you must pay (or the Government must pay) for is not commerce?

Society has every right to regulate commerce.

Performing an abortion is as much commerce as performing a blowjob or performing data entry or performing a plumbing job. The assembled masses apaprently claiming Medicine is not business/commerce is simply mind boggling to me.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

An Fetus would have to have rights for their to be competing interests/rights.

A fetus does not have rights, hence cannot have it's own interests, so that is an invalid claim.

The termination of that fetus is also a business transaction, i.e. commerce. In a nation that defines choosing not to buy healthcare as commerce, or choosing not to grow wheat as commerce, you're going to argue that having a medical procedure you must pay (or the Government must pay) for is not commerce?



Performing an abortion is as much commerce as performing a blowjob or performing data entry or performing a plumbing job. The assembled masses apaprently claiming Medicine is not business/commerce is simply mind boggling to me.

Your wrong on your first point, read the Supreme Court opinion. Your wrong on the second point because commerce can be regulated doesn't mean you get to choose by making the argument that there is no difference in types of commerce and how society regulates those different aspects of commerce. There are laws against prostitution and medicine is most certainly regulated.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Your wrong on your first point, read the Supreme Court opinion. Your wrong on the second point because commerce can be regulated doesn't mean you get to choose by making the argument that there is no difference in types of commerce and how society regulates those different aspects of commerce. There are laws against prostitution and medicine is most certainly regulated.

You do understand I'm not arguing the existing application of teh existing Law, right?

Yes, obviously there are "laws against Prostitution" and RvW protects abortion.

I'm arguing/discussing the why behind a right to abortion, the right to film pornoraphic films that include full sex, and a total ban on prostitution.

Clearly, I'm in the minority who fails to see the supposed differences that warrant the different treatment. Must say though, I do find the thread evry very enlightening, so I'm glad it went as it did regardless.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by FF2®

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.

But that's what the discussion is about. Can you find a reason that abortion should be legal, that would not also apply to prostitution.

Originally Posted by FF2®

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?

That's rather the point isn't it? The first two examples i would argue include equally hypocritical positions. The third i can answer for you.

MMA (i'm assuming that's what you meant) is two guys fighting. Two guys fighting is legal under certain circumstances. The reason two guys are not allowed to fight outside of these regulations is because of safety concerns.

I cannot find an argument to justify pot being illegal and alcohol being legal.

I cannot find an argument to justify commercial massage being legal and but commercial sexual contact (between two consenting adults, under safe conditions) being illegal.

I cannot find an argument to justify abortion being legal but commercial sexual contact (between two consenting adults, under safe conditions) being illegal.

Originally Posted by FF2®

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?

No, I'm not trying to shoehorn your opinion. Your opinion (i believe) is that both abortion and prostitution should be legal. Your opinion does not address Warfish's contention. I don't think there is any question whether you can logically conclude both abortion and prostitution should be legal. Incidentally my opinion doesn't address the issue either. I believe abortion should be illegal but prostitution should be legal.

What is at issue is whether an argument can be formulated that justifies abortion being legal but prostitution being illegal. It doesn't matter that there are difference between abortion and prostitution it matters whether or not those differences are material in regards to the hypothetical position in question.

Originally Posted by FF2®

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

Perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement. Everything is related to everything else in some capacity. There are a lot of things about abortion and prostitution that make them different. However i cannot find the difference that would allow supporting abortion but not prostitution. I don't believe it exists.

[Warfish]

I should just stop posting tbqh.

Axil is a vastly better version of what I post, in pretty much every way. Smarter, better writing, better typing/spelling, more logical and better laid out arguments, and more concise and direct arguments.

/Out.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Axil

What is at issue is whether an argument can be formulated that justifies abortion being legal but prostitution being illegal.

Here is one possible justification from my perspective.

Illegal abortion is synonymous with the government legally forcing a woman into childbirth. Illegal prostitution does not force an individual into any action.

For the record, I think both should be legal.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You do understand I'm not arguing the existing application of teh existing Law, right?

Yes, obviously there are "laws against Prostitution" and RvW protects abortion.

I'm arguing/discussing the why behind a right to abortion, the right to film pornoraphic films that include full sex, and a total ban on prostitution.

Clearly, I'm in the minority who fails to see the supposed differences that warrant the different treatment. Must say though, I do find the thread evry very enlightening, so I'm glad it went as it did regardless.

I'm not sure people are really suggesting the differences warrant different treatment. I think rather, it's difficult for people to argue for a position they don't hold.

(for the below A = abortion P = prostitution Y = yes N = no)

I think most republicans believe: A:N, P:N.

most democrats believe: A:Y, P:Y

a few people (some libertarians like myself) believe: A:N, P:Y

But almost nobody believes: A:Y, P:N.


So while i think i happen to agree with your contention that A:Y, P:N is untenable, i don't think your going to find anyone who holds those beliefs to debate in it's favor.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by parafly

Here is one possible justification from my perspective.

Illegal abortion is synonymous with the government legally forcing a woman into childbirth. Illegal prostitution does not force an individual into any action.

For the record, I think both should be legal.

Ok.. let's try that argument.

"Forcing a woman to have a child" can be rephased as "Prohibiting a woman from terminating a pregnancy"

So you have Prohibition of terminating a pregnancy vs prohibition of selling sex for money.

Now you might say that the resulting child is more damaging to a person than the loss of income due to outlawing prostitution. I'm not sure that's true in all cases though. There are some well paid, highly skilled prostitutes who will never have to deal with the issue of abortion, and some who would like to have an abortion who would never consider prostitution.

Furthermore you've failed to address the justification for either prohibition in the first place. What is the benefit of prohibiting prostitution and what is the benefit of prohibiting abortion? Obviously these issues are hard to address when you don't hold the position your arguing for yourself.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

I'm not sure people are really suggesting the differences warrant different treatment. I think rather, it's difficult for people to argue for a position they don't hold.

(for the below A = abortion P = prostitution Y = yes N = no)

I think most republicans believe: A:N, P:N.

most democrats believe: A:Y, P:Y

a few people (some libertarians like myself) believe: A:N, P:Y

But almost nobody believes: A:Y, P:N.


So while i think i happen to agree with your contention that A:Y, P:N is untenable, i don't think your going to find anyone who holds those beliefs to debate in it's favor.

Probably true, and fair enough.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Axil

"Forcing a woman to have a child" can be rephased as "Prohibiting a woman from terminating a pregnancy"

There are very few situations where legal prohibition of an action forces an individual into an alternative single concrete action which cannot be avoided.

Essentially, illegal abortion is government coercion over a woman, while illegal prostitution warrants no such label. That is the fundamental difference as I see it.

[finlee17]

Originally Posted by Axil

So while i think i happen to agree with your contention that A:Y, P:N is untenable, i don't think your going to find anyone who holds those beliefs to debate in it's favor.

If legal prostitution increases demand to the point that it out paces supply, then it may increase human trafficking. I think they're already seeing this trend in countries where prostitution is legal in some form. That kind of problem can allow somebody who supports abortion to oppose legalizing prostitution without comprising some core position.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

There are very few situations where legal prohibition of an action forces an individual into an alternative single concrete action which cannot be avoided.

Essentially, illegal abortion is government coercion over a woman, while illegal prostitution warrants no such label. That is the fundamental difference as I see it.

It can be argued that they are not being foced into an action.

They choose to take an action (sex) that has a very specific potential consequence (Pregnancy). That the risk is inherant and ingrained to the choice.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by finlee17

If legal prostitution increases demand to the point that it out paces supply, then it may increase human trafficking. I think they're already seeing this trend in countries where prostitution is legal in some form. That kind of problem can allow somebody who supports abortion to oppose legalizing prostitution without comprising some core position.

I find it very unlikely that you would see more human trafficking surrounding legal prostitution as opposed to illegal prostitution. Also, you would think you would see this issue in Nevada where prostitution is legal. Right now Nevada is happily absorbing the U.S.'s (and some of canada's i believe) demand for legal prostitution. Increasing the supply to all 50 states would lower prices, thus lower the need for illegal alternatives involving human trafficking.

However, i suppose in theory you're correct. If you genuinely believed human trafficking would increase with increased legalized prostitution then you would have a difference that could warrant separating the issues without comprising your any base principle.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It can be argued that they are not being foced into an action.

They choose to take an action (sex) that has a very specific potential consequence (Pregnancy). That the risk is inherant and ingrained to the choice.

The original choice is irrelevant to the argument. Childbirth is a distinct action, one which has a relatively safe alternative in the modern world. The government has no business forcing the individual into one action over the other.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by parafly

The original choice is irrelevant to the argument. Childbirth is a distinct action, one which has a relatively safe alternative in the modern world. The government has no business forcing the individual into one action over the other.

Hmm.. So if i take out a personal loan for 5K, put it on the roulette table, and lose, should i not have to pay because the payment of said debt is "distinct" from it's loss on the table?

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You do understand I'm not arguing the existing application of teh existing Law, right?

Yes, obviously there are "laws against Prostitution" and RvW protects abortion.

I'm arguing/discussing the why behind a right to abortion, the right to film pornoraphic films that include full sex, and a total ban on prostitution.

Clearly, I'm in the minority who fails to see the supposed differences that warrant the different treatment. Must say though, I do find the thread evry very enlightening, so I'm glad it went as it did regardless.

In the case of an abortion a women is not aborting for pay. In the case of prostitution and pornography they are entering into commerce.

Prostitution unlike pornographic is solicited to those not in the trade. Lame as that may seem I can see where communities have every right to prohibit that behavior. Abortion on the other hand is a limited Federal right which ties into more then mere privacy it goes directly to a womens direct control over her body. Prostitution is not just sex that we can freely enter into, not the same as when it's being sold.

Community standards and laws can and do change. I have no doubt that prostitution and legalization of drugs is soon to be with us which I'm sure will make many libertarians very happy.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

The original choice is irrelevant to the argument. Childbirth is a distinct action, one which has a relatively safe alternative in the modern world. The government has no business forcing the individual into one action over the other.

Original Choice: Rob Bank

Government Forcing Individual Into One Action due to Choice: Prison



Are there any choices you can make where the Govt. WOULD enforce your responsabillity for that choice, or no?

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Axil

Hmm.. So if i take out a personal loan for 5K, put it on the roulette table, and lose, should i not have to pay because the payment of said debt is "distinct" from it's loss on the table?

When you take out a personal loan, you sign a contract with terms on paying it back. I don't think there are too many people signing contracts that they will follow through on a potential childbirth before they have sex.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

In the case of an abortion a women is not aborting for pay.

The Doctor is.

A service (abortion) is being provided for and a payment is recived, either from the individual, the individuals insurance company, or the Government. Even if no payment is given (i.e. services donated), it's still commerce.

Prostitution unlike pornographic is solicited to those not in the trade. Lame as that may seem I can see where communities have every right to prohibit that behavior.

If we follow that logic, a community could equally and legally choose to disallow other services from their community.....like abortion providers, for example.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by parafly

When you take out a personal loan, you sign a contract with terms on paying it back. I don't think there are too many people signing contracts that they will follow through on a potential childbirth before they have sex.

If abortion were illegal the necessity to carry out a potential pregnancy would be implied though.