Thread: Prostitution should be legal

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I cant see a difference.


I can understand your position, but as long as all involved consent and there is no coercion or immense harm to society involved, and there isn't here, then I can't see why or how it should be opposed.

"Immense harm to society" is meaningless. If there is an identifiable victim, then there is a crime. if there's no identifiable victim. The claim that "society is harmed" without any identifiable victims of an identifiable action is pure sophistry.

Drugs don't harm society. The use of illicit drugs doesn't harm society. Occasionally a user of a prohibitied substance will harm another person who is a member of society. Statistically, drug users are more likely to harm other people than non-drug users. This is given as evidence that drug use must be stopped and criminalized. However, statistically, vehicle drivers are more likely to harm other people than non-vehicle drivers (40,000 are killed, many more maimed by vehicle drivers) yet there is no call for outlawing vehicles. If prohibitionists trully felt there is a moral imperative to save lives by eliminating risk, then they would call for all activity that creates risk for individuals not engaged in that activity to be prohibited. So, it can be rationally concluded that it is not the harm that is done to some individuals that concerns the prohibitionist, but the enjoyment of the substance without any societal benefit that then makes it immoral. Drugs are bad because they are fun.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

"Immense harm to society" is meaningless. If there is an identifiable victim, then there is a crime.

That's what I mean.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

The claim that "society is harmed" without any identifiable victims of an identifiable action is pure sophistry.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

Drugs don't harm society. The use of illicit drugs doesn't harm society. Occasionally a user of a prohibitied substance will harm another person who is a member of society. Statistically, drug users are more likely to harm other people than non-drug users. This is given as evidence that drug use must be stopped and criminalized. However, statistically, vehicle drivers are more likely to harm other people than non-vehicle drivers (40,000 are killed, many more maimed by vehicle drivers) yet there is no call for outlawing vehicles. If prohibitionists trully felt there is a moral imperative to save lives by eliminating risk, then they would call for all activity that creates risk for individuals not engaged in that activity to be prohibited. So, it can be rationally concluded that it is not the harm that is done to some individuals that concerns the prohibitionist, but the enjoyment of the substance without any societal benefit that then makes it immoral. Drugs are bad because they are fun.

True, however society is affected by having to often pay for the repercussions of said substance abuse, but this is for another thread. In essence and principle I agree with you.

When comes to organs, one (in the US anyway) cannot legally sell them. Technically when you receive a donor organ you are not billed for said organ, just its removal and placement in your body and removal and disposal of the defunct organ you had prior. Likewise, when you donate plasma the payment you receive for the process is a payment “for your time” and not the plasma itself.

Through some sort of clever legal wording couldn’t someone come up with some way to pay said “prostitute” for their time or some such process other than the sex itself and via that clever wording avoid the criminal portion of the profession?

Originally Posted by MrZ2u

When comes to organs, one (in the US anyway) cannot legally sell them. Technically when you receive a donor organ you are not billed for said organ, just its removal and placement in your body and removal and disposal of the defunct organ you had prior. Likewise, when you donate plasma the payment you receive for the process is a payment “for your time” and not the plasma itself.

Through some sort of clever legal wording couldn’t someone come up with some way to pay said “prostitute” for their time or some such process other than the sex itself and via that clever wording avoid the criminal portion of the profession?

They can't afford the same lawyers. Otherwise that argument about "paying for placing an organ in the body" world work in both cases.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

The argument is that certain rights cannot be abridged, even if that abridgment is consensual. We don't allow folks to consent to suicide, we don't allow them to consensually sell themselves into slavery, we don't allow people to consent to sale of their organs. The prohibition exists because we believe the law must protect people from loss of these rights, even if the person trying to strip them of life, liberty, or ownership of their body is themselves.

What about property? Am I not allowed to sell or give away my property because property is a right? Why do you care if a consensual adult sells themselves into slavery or sells an organ? And come on... don't tell me you support that stupid suicide law.

Also, how is this an argument to outlaw prostitution? It's legitimate to outlaw things between consenting adults, so... outlaw voluntary sex + voluntary exchange of money?

Originally Posted by Warspite

I concur; legalise, regulate, and tax. I would imagine legally mandated STI checkups every so often would go some way to making prostitution safer for all involved.

If some idiot wants to go to a brothel that doesn't do checkups, isn't that his choice?

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

What rights are being abdicated by prostituting yourself...? Good question, fundamental question. I do believe there is a fundamental difference between accepting money in exchange for labor and accepting money to allow someone to sexually enter your body... not sure how to define it though. I don't have a clear answer for you.

You don't have a clear answer because you don't have a clear position. You're unsure because you know there's no reason to outlaw prostitution, but you've always been told it's wrong, so you can't commit yourself to legalize prostitution. You have brought forth no argument to keep prostitution prohibited.

Originally Posted by LibertarianFTW

What about property? Am I not allowed to sell or give away my property because property is a right? Why do you care if a consensual adult sells themselves into slavery or sells an organ? And come on... don't tell me you support that stupid suicide law.

I would care. A system which enforces a contract for slavery is not a free or libertarian system. Selling one's services through the use of one's body, ie. prostitution, is a different. It's just an exchange of labor for title (property.)

Selling an organ? Hard to say. I think people should not be prevented from selling them after they are dead in order to provide benefits for their family. It's certainly not ethical for any person to take someone's organs knowing that it would be the cause of their death. That would be homicide.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

A system which enforces a contract for slavery is not a free or libertarian system.

Why not? If it's voluntary, the intensity or brutality is irrelevant. Would you impose laws on the voluntary exchange of slavery because you feel that it's an exploitation of the voluntary "victim"?

Selling an organ? Hard to say. I think people should not be prevented from selling them after they are dead in order to provide benefits for their family. It's certainly not ethical for any person to take someone's organs knowing that it would be the cause of their death. That would be homicide.

Unethical, sure, but if someone is willing to sacrifice his/her life to earn money for his/her family or whatever, why should that be prohibited by the government?

Originally Posted by LibertarianFTW

Why not? If it's voluntary, the intensity or brutality is irrelevant. Would you impose laws on the voluntary exchange of slavery because you feel that it's an exploitation of the voluntary "victim"?

I think his point was that no one should be forced into a contract of slavery. So for example, someone who is poor, or in desperate need of employment etc, should not be allowed to sell themselves into slavery for rather apparent reasons.

Originally Posted by LibertarianFTW

Unethical, sure, but if someone is willing to sacrifice his/her life to earn money for his/her family or whatever, why should that be prohibited by the government?

The premise of selling one's labor in trade for self interest is not disputed - what is disputed is the necessary conditions for said trade. I dont think all voluntary trade should be accessibly if it does harm to others, or in cases where the idea of 'voluntary decision making' is hazy - ie not entirely voluntary and free. I think this is BHK's contention as well.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I think his point was that no one should be forced into a contract of slavery. So for example, someone who is poor, or in desperate need of employment etc, should not be allowed to sell themselves into slavery for rather apparent reasons.

I could apply that same argument to prostitution. If someone would rather sell himself into slavery for a few years than remain poor for the rest of his life, that's his decision to make. Similarly, if a woman wants to sell her body to earn income, that's her decision.

The premise of selling one's labor in trade for self interest is not disputed - what is disputed is the necessary conditions for said trade. I dont think all voluntary trade should be accessibly if it does harm to others, or in cases where the idea of 'voluntary decision making' is hazy - ie not entirely voluntary and free. I think this is BHK's contention as well.

If it deprives someone else's rights who did not agree to such terms, obviously there should be restrictions there. However, the argument that it's not really voluntary because that person has no where else to turn is the most common argument I hear for prostitution. I actually find it to be an argument for prostitution -- if it's not a choice, why arrest the women who are involuntarily selling their bodies?

Not for nothing guys, but I wouldn't want a prostitute. They do it for a living, they're constantly having sex with a countless number of men on a daily basis. Do you really want to put your junk there?

I am not one to talk, I have my share of prostitutes back in the old day, but then again AIDS wasn't around then either.