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.Society has every right to regulate commerce.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-13-2012 at 02:45 PM.
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.
If we follow that logic, a community could equally and legally choose to disallow other services from their community.....like abortion providers, for example.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.