|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 23:01:25 GMT -5
More mob mentality. Decriminalization of vice leads to an increase in vice. Polytheist calls this a "slippery slope" argument. Be that as it may, towns with prostitution soon have drugs, then robberies, then murders. I have chosen to live in a town without prostitution and we have none of the other stuff either. This is either wishful thinking or just your turning a blind eye to it. It also reminds me of a high school in Medway Ohio who used to have signs out stating that it was a dug free zone. After the school board invited the authorities to investigate, the courts ordered the signs down because they found over thirty pounds of illegal drugs on the premesis. The point is that just because you do not see it doesn't mean it isn't there. I did once see a woman I have little doubt was a prostitute in our town. Did I call to have her arrested? No -- I offered and she accepted a ride to Mass. We talked about Baptists and Catholics (she was familar with both) and her sons (both teenagers but both not working). She sat through most of Mass but left during the Eucharist for the restroom, returning toward the end of it. As we drove back to my town, she mentioned that she needed "gas money". I dropped her off where I'd found her and gave her all I had -- probably about $200. So as you can see, I have nothing against this "sinner". But there is not a doubt in my mind that what she had been attempting to do should remain illegal. And had she been arrested that day (as she likely would have been) instead of choosing to go to Mass with me, I'd not have bailed her out. Bailed her out? What an ego you must have to think that taking a suspected prostitute to church with you one time and giving her $200, you 'bailed her out'. Tolerance is a form of encouragement. I disagree. Silent tolerance may well be a form of encouragement, but tolerance does not have to be. Absolutely. She offers husbands the opportunity to secretly engage in adultery, no strings attached. I can think of very few worse things than helping to destroy a marriage and family. Here your black and white mentality is once again showing through. Please name one place in the world where prostitution is illegal and because of such there is absolutely no prostitution going on there? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that if by some miracle prostitution just dropped off the face of the planet that cheating husbands will no longer cheat? I would really be interested in seeing the statistics on the number of those who cheat with prostitutes and the number of those who cheat who have never been with a prostitute. You make it sound as though everyone who cheats does so with prostitutes. (I equally believe the johns should be prosecuted. If there is no demand, there will be no supply.) Once again with your little ideal world. Please name one place where prostitution is illegal where the john does not face prosecution if caught? Prostitution is not victimless. Other than the prostitute herself, the victims include the husbands, the wives, and the children of the johns... not to mention future generations who may also suffer the consequences. I cannot help but wonder why it is you think that the prostitute is the one to blame for the john cheating on his spouse? Do you honestly believe that if the prostitute did not exist that he would not cheat on his spouse? And yes, there are victims even if the john is not married... if not his future wife, certainly his mother. He is not honoring her by treating another woman as a sexual object for hire. His future wife? His mother? Talk about grasping at straws. Is this to say that as long as he engages in premarital sex with a non-prostitute that his future wife will not be a "victim"? If his future wife knows about his premarital sex before the wedding is she still a victim? If so, is she still a "victim" even if she is the only one he had premarital sex with?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 23:47:26 GMT -5
This is either wishful thinking or just your turning a blind eye to it. Please prove this. I can show you the criminal records in our newspaper -- we still list every traffic ticket, much less more serious offenses. I never said any such thing. I said I gave her $200, and had she been arrested, I would NOT have bailed her out. Prove a negative? I think not. But I already named a place -- the town in which I live. Do you honestly believe that no fewer would? I did not say any such thing. And those who cheat aren't exactly publishing THAT in the newspapers, so I highly doubt there are accurate statistics. For one who refers so often to logical argument, your post is certainly full of illogical inferences. I did not claim there was such a place. I did not claim that. I claimed that the prostitute is the one offering. Many men and boys are pressured by peers to be with stripper/prostitutes. I have counseled more than one. These are men who would not have thought to seek one out and are appalled at what they have done to their families. Not everyone is as morally corrupt as you would make them out to be. I'm only repeating what I've been told by those who have experienced this firsthand. She would be equally victimized by any adulterous relationship, as would he. This is not a thread about premarital sex, though much of what I've posted here would apply there as well. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying this in the sense of "oh poor victims". I'm saying it in the same sense that I would say it about those who accidentally kill themselves drunk driving, or those who overdose on drugs. When you play with fire, eventually you get burned. Yes. Yes, though not to the same degree (if it was consensual), since a different trust was betrayed.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 0:14:12 GMT -5
Your own what? Moral compass? Believe it or not Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, much as they would like to think otherwise. You are the one who claims morality is "my own"... not I. I acknowledge that apart from Jesus Christ, I can do/know nothing.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 0:29:12 GMT -5
You seem to have an extremely hard time accepting the fact that I do not see the world as black and white. Right or wrong. With us or against us. Good or evil. On the contrary, you do seem to view it as black and white. You say "morality is relative" as though it is an absolute. You judge every argument based on YOUR own opinion (for you do not appeal to any other standard) and pronounce that judgment without taking into account the nuances of communication. Not once have I said anything about stopping cheating husbands from cheating. Your argument is like saying that drugs should be legalized just because there will always be users. Or that we should celebrate poverty because there will always be poor people. You say you deal with reality? Reality is that behavior that causes harm should be illegal. Nor do I. That doesn't mean I cannot understand the position of those who do have that authority and obligation, share their views, and lend my support to them. Oversimplification. The laws to stone offenders were made at a time when the people were nomads and therefore had no prisons. When Jesus Christ arrived on the scene, He made it clear that stoning was not to be viewed as a foregone punishment (John 8), and that justice was to be tempered with mercy (Matthew 18).
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 27, 2006 0:58:36 GMT -5
You are the one who claims morality is "my own"... not I. I acknowledge that apart from Jesus Christ, I can do/know nothing. Really? When did I claim that? All I said is that your comparison for being out of alignment is based upon your morality. Nothing more. Nice strawman though.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 27, 2006 1:03:14 GMT -5
Your argument is like saying that drugs should be legalized just because there will always be users. Or that we should celebrate poverty because there will always be poor people. That is not the argument being presented. That is the strawman you continuously attack. Big difference, though you refuse to see it. You say you deal with reality? Reality is that behavior that causes harm should be illegal. Really? Do away with drinking because some peolpe cause harm from it. Your throw out the baby with the bath water attitude knows no bounds. Oversimplification. The laws to stone offenders were made at a time when the people were nomads and therefore had no prisons. When Jesus Christ arrived on the scene, He made it clear that stoning was not to be viewed as a foregone punishment (John 8), and that justice was to be tempered with mercy (Matthew 18). Yet another example of the never changing God changing his mind...
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 27, 2006 4:30:28 GMT -5
OK ... let's stop fighting cos it's just turning into a debate over what's right and wrong, and that isn't the point ... the point is the issue of criminality.
diana seems to be saying that prostitution is wrong since pre-marital sex and adultery are wrong - but if neither of those are illegal, why should prostitution be illegal? because it reduces the prostitute to a piece of meat to be bought and sold? but so does any form of manual labour in a capitalist society. is there any reason for criminalising prostitution and not those other vices?
i'm not saying prostitution is right or good for society, what i'm saying is that in societies where prostitution is present despite illegality then the society would be better off having some form of legal option available for the prostitutes, since all the suffering caused by the illegality of prostitution could be avoided.
legalisation is tolerance, not encouragement. cigarettes are legal but the reaction of non-smokers to smokers if they light up in their presence is less than friendly - smoking is legal but not encouraged.
it would be nice if statements like "behavior that causes harm should be illegal" would create a sound system of criminal law, but the fact is that real life is not so simple. (there has been quite a bit written about this - i could look out an article that i'm thinking of - i think it's Hilary Duff, "Harm and Wrongdoing" or something like that - but it's likely that no-one would look it up, so i can't be bothered searching out the citation if no-one's interested).
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 7:58:22 GMT -5
OK ... let's stop fighting cos it's just turning into a debate over what's right and wrong, and that isn't the point ... the point is the issue of criminality. diana seems to be saying that prostitution is wrong since pre-marital sex and adultery are wrong - but if neither of those are illegal, why should prostitution be illegal? because it reduces the prostitute to a piece of meat to be bought and sold? but so does any form of manual labour in a capitalist society. is there any reason for criminalising prostitution and not those other vices? Manual labor is not a vice. Main Entry: 1 vice Pronunciation: 'vIs Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin vitium fault, vice 1 a : moral depravity or corruption : WICKEDNESS b : a moral fault or failing c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : FOIBLE <suffered from the vice of curiosity> 2 : BLEMISH, DEFECT 3 : a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint 4 a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play b : BUFFOON, JESTER 5 : an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness 6 : sexual immorality; especially : PROSTITUTION [/u] synonym see FAULT, OFFENSE [/blockquote] littlepea, you are amazing in wanting things both ways. You want me to view prostitutes as poor women who have no choice and need our help, but you defend the morality of prostitution by claiming that the women choose it. You admit that prostitution has terrible results -- so much so that you would not desire your daughter to be a prostitute -- but then you demean honest alternatives by making them out to be the same thing. Those who work in manual labor earn an honest living and can go home at night with self-respect, pride at the day's accomplishments, and sleep well. Those who earn their living at the expense of others demean themselves and damage themselves as well as others. Don't you understand that the reason drug use is so high among prostitutes is that they seek to escape their situations? Reducing this argument to its elements: If A is present, A should be legal. You can use this argument for absolutely any crime. Be careful what precedent you want to set. It is encouraged -- by smokers, by the owners of the tobacco industry, by the law. Your argument: X is legal. A uses X. B discourages X. Therefore X is not encouraged. You forget that actions speak louder than words. A's use of X (smoker's use of cigarettes) is the best encouragement there could be for that behavior. No one claimed these issues were simple. That is exactly why we cannot use only our personal opinions to address them. Lizzie McGuire? I think not. (Nice little test, littlepea... and a good example of the difference between you and me. I gave you sources in Mormonism... you not only don't provide sources here but give misleading "clues".) I suspect you meant R.A. Duff, the philosopher. Actually, he does a very nice job of supporting what I'm trying to convey here: Even where there is an independently identifiable harm brought about by the crime (death, for instance, in the case of murder), the harm suffered by the victim of a murderous attack is not the same as that suffered by someone who dies from natural causes. Furthermore, in some cases, such as rape, we cannot even in this distorted way identify the criminal harmfulness of the action with a separable effect. This is what I'm saying. Comparing a vice with honest labor is, in Duff's words, "a distorted version of the relevant harm".
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 8:20:27 GMT -5
You are the one who claims morality is "my own"... not I. I acknowledge that apart from Jesus Christ, I can do/know nothing. Really? When did I claim that? Oh, let's see... Just so you know, the world is what we (meaning all of us) make it.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 8:26:20 GMT -5
Your argument is like saying that drugs should be legalized just because there will always be users. Or that we should celebrate poverty because there will always be poor people. That is not the argument being presented. That is the strawman you continuously attack. Big difference, though you refuse to see it. They are relevant comparisons. All are behaviors that exist and will likely always exist. All are controlled by one group of people to the detriment of others. All are blights on society. "That is not the argument being presented. That is the strawman you continuously attack. Big difference, though you refuse to see it." First of all, consumption of alcohol is not an abuse of a person -- though it often leads to that. The main distinction that makes prostitution of greater concern proportionately is that it is behavior of one person against themself and others. Alcohol consumption, if done in moderation, has no ill effects. Secondly, though some have a weakness for alcohol, it is actually healthy in moderation -- shown by studies. Show me a study that says prostitution is healthy. Show me a study that says prostitution leads to a decrease in drug use and murder. Show me a study that says prostitutes move on to better things with no regret for that behavior. Show me a study that says the families of husbands who frequent prostitutes are strengthened by that behavior. (The BEST testimony I was able to find stated that the wife was "understanding" -- but she still insisted the behavior STOP.) Read again. What changed was the status of the people.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 27, 2006 9:48:38 GMT -5
Manual labor is not a vice. i did not say that manual labour is a vice, though i can see how you might have misunderstood (since the statement followed the phrase "manual labour"). what i meant was: since the vices of adultery and pre-marital sex are not illegal, why should the vice of prostitution be illegal? i only mentioned manual labour because it is the reason not to listen to the marxist argument that the woman sells "herself" or is somehow dehumanized in prostitution, since this happens with all forms of manual labour, this is no reason to criminalise prostitution any more than any other form of manual labour. i never said the women have no choice, but if someone wants to go into prostitution they have to go to a pimp for protection who usually exploits her and forces her to carry on when she doesn't want to etc. i don't defend the morality of prostitution one bit, i'm just saying that mere immorality is a poor justification for the suffering caused by illegality. prostitution in its current state does have terrible results, but the negative aspects could be greatly reduced with decriminalisation. i'm not demeaning "moral" alternatives to prostitution by comparing them, i'm merely trying to pin down what it is about prostitution that justifies criminalisation. example: "prostitution should be illegal because it dehumanizes the woman and there is a severe risk of violence and disease". the woman is no more dehumanized than in any other form of manual labour, so that is no justification. there is a great risk of physical injury and violence in contact sports, yet they are not illegal, and there is a high risk of disease in the factory worker's job of plucking feathers from nearly frozen chickens. therefore these 3 reasons are not grounds enough for justifying illegality. my comparison there does not demean contact sport or factory work or manual labour in general, i'm just pointing out that such arguments are not justification - or do you not accept this? that is not what i'm saying at all. i'm saying that where extra-marital sex (ie. sex which takes place outside of marriage - including pre-marital sex and adultery) is not illegal, you cannot justify criminalising prostitution on the basis that it potentially involves adultery (as you have been saying for the last few pages). incidentally, i meant to say earlier, i've been to a few strip clubs and they were a great laugh. i told my friends (some girls) and they all laughed with me. i probably wouldn't hesitate to tell my mum. good fun. that's what i'm trying to tell you! you're saying "prostitution should be illegal because it's immoral" - where does this immorality come from? explain it to me. or is it just "there" and you just "see" it. this is not a good basis for public policy. how can you accuse me of providing no sources? if you look back at my first posts in this topic i provide several sources for the types of arguments i am presenting. worse than that, you accuse me of intentionally providing an inaccurate (and ludicrous) source - for darn's sake, do you think i'm taking the piss? but R.A. Duff is who i meant (i honestly can't tell you why i thought hilary duff, though i did think R.A. Duff was a woman, having only read articles with his surname at the top, i dunno who he is). the article i was referring to was "Virtue, Vice, and Criminal Liability: Do We Want an Aristotelian Criminal Law?" (citation: (2002) 6 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 147). it discusses whether aristotle's definition of virtues and vices can be used as a basis for criminal law. (the one that i had in mind when i made my last post was "Harms and Wrongs", also by Duff, and can be found at (2002) 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 13 - it compares Feinberg's and Mill's principles of "Harm") this is not what duff says (can you provide a source for that quote?) and it is not what i'm saying at all. why are you incapable of thinking about this debate rationally?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 9:58:12 GMT -5
Time for a reality check. Testimony of former prostitute Shelley Lubben: At first it seemed exciting with men giving me money, jewelry and gifts but soon it became a life of slavery. I found myself having bizarre sex with strangers and began to hate it. Clients would do things like break condoms on purpose or follow me around and stalk me. One man tried to kill me and hit me with his truck. Another man carried a gun whenever he was with me and threatened to kill me if I didn't perform certain sex acts. Men made demands on me and I was constantly having to lie in order to get out of very frightening situations. I became a professional liar and could literally lie my way out of anything. I even lied my way out of several DUI's and several near death experiences. This is the standard for the sex industry and is the main survival tool for any stripper, prostitute or porn actress.
[...]
While working as a prostitute, I became pregnant three times from clients and it devastated me. A million questions formed in my mind each time. How could I let this happen? How would I take care of the baby? Should I have an abortion? Where could I turn to? I didn’t even know who the fathers were for two of the pregnancies. Then I remembered Jesus and I begged Him, “Please help me”. God comforted me and I knew I could never kill a life so I kept my baby. Two of the pregnancies ended in miscarriage but one of them did not and I had my first daughter, Tiffany, at age 20. She is mixed with Asian and is very beautiful. I tried to go back to doing only exotic dancing, but prostitution crept up on me and was hard to resist, especially as a single mother.
After a few years as a single mother and working as a prostitute and dancer, I began to drink very heavily and developed a terrible addiction to alcohol and drugs. Tiffany grew up a sad little girl neglected and her innocence was often violated. As she grew older she realized strange men were "visiting" me and was angry with me. I use to make her hide in her bedroom while I "entertained" clients. She also saw me in "peculiar" relationships with women. She didn't totally understand it all but she definitely was subjected to living with a lewd wild woman. I was such a bad mother, that I use to give Tiffany a beeper and make her go to the park while I pulled tricks. She was only four years old.
I began to see myself as a complete failure. I lost all self worth and hated myself for being a horrible mother. I was so tired from always trying to survive. There was never any rest from the lifestyle. Men followed me home, slashed my tires, called me at all hours, came over drunk in the middle of the night, and even attempted to kill me several times. To function, I always had a big bottle of Jack Daniels on hand. Sometimes I'd go sit in a corner with my bottle and cry out totally drunk to Jesus, "Please help me!", but it seemed He wasn't there. Yet I always felt a strange "protection" around me. Her story goes on to describe her entry into pornography, several suicide attempts, and the general state prostitution left her in: I wasn't able to have a normal relationship because my heart was completely black and cold toward all men. What makes you think legalization of prostitution could do ANYTHING about these things? Notice she did not lie to evade prostitution laws -- she lied to evade twisted demands and DUIs. She did not come to hate those who made prostitution illegal -- she came to hate ALL MEN. And she was not able to protect her child -- she admits that she neglected her and put her in grave danger. What changed this downward spiral? Thankfully, once she finally married, her drug-addicted husband was fired from his job and was forced to go into the military. He cleaned up his act, and though she had become alcoholic and was suffering cervical cancer, they began to attend a nearby church and learn the true purpose of life. She attributes it all to God: After walking in that first day to the Champion center broken and shattered, eight years later I walked out a Champion woman totally healed and equipped and excited to live life! God totally restored me from drugs, alcohol addiction, bad memories, mental illness, sexual addiction, sexual trauma, and everything from my past. God took me out of the old life, He offered me a new life, and though I couldn't see it in the beginning, I put my hand in His and took a chance on Him. WOW, that was the best choice I ever made!!
God also restored my femininity and healed my sexuality, which is a MAJOR miracle for me. After doing porn I lost ability to function sexually. The fact that I can enjoy a healthy sexual relationship now is an absolute miracle!! God also healed me of the non-curable disease herpes. I was part of a special military study for pregnant women with herpes in 1996 and when I was tested they said I couldn't be in the study because there was no herpes virus in my blood. The test came back negative! I also am cancer free as the doctors were able to remove all the cervical cancer. He's Jehovah-Rophe the God that heals us! Praise the Lord... He is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 27, 2006 10:29:25 GMT -5
what i meant was: since the vices of adultery and pre-marital sex are not illegal, why should the vice of prostitution be illegal? If there was a way to enforce the laws related to adultery, I would be all for it. The difference between those actions and prostitution is solicitation. The prostitutes who are arrested are primarily the ones who walk the streets. Do I believe making something illegal eliminates a problem? No, but it clearly defines behavior as unacceptable. It makes people think twice before engaging in the behavior. And if they do choose it anyway, it keeps them off the streets and out of the public eye. Marxism argues that manual labor is not honest but is exploitation. That is distortion. Meanwhile, a woman's womb is meant to bear children. Her breasts are meant to feed them. We know this because it is the inevitable result of engaging in sexual contact. Selling her body for purposes other than these is indeed selling herself... and selling the purpose of the body she was given. If there were not illegal behavior, there would be no such suffering. The law is not the cause of suffering -- the behavior is. How would decriminalization change a lustful man's demands? How would it change the thrill he gets out of overpowering a woman? How would it change the sick pleasure he gets out of breaking a condom to see her reaction? How would it change the abuse he inflicts if drunk or high? How would it prevent him from following her home, molesting her children, and threatening her life? Does making prostitution illegal eliminate these things? No -- it makes it clear that by choosing a life of illegal activity, this is the kind of life the prostitute is choosing. Easy for you to say. I think I'll believe the testimony of the former prostitute over yours. This is not true. In contact sports, all players understand the rules meant to protect them. In factories, all employees understand the safety standards. All of them know that they risk losing their jobs should they fail to adhere to them. In prostitution, once the door is closed there are no rules or standards unless they are mutually accepted -- and there is nothing that holds an immoral man to a rule or standard. You talk a good talk. Tell your mother and let me know what she says. It comes from our Creator. He knows our true purpose. He gives us judgment and conscience to protect us. For those who abandon good judgment and conscience, it falls to those who do not to establish and enforce laws. You misquoted a source. If it was unintentional, I accept that. But I daresay I was easier on you than one of your law professors would be. And I KNOW I was easier on you than a judge would be. I suggest you find out if you're going to quote him: Antony DuffI know that, as it was the paper I quoted. I did... did you miss it? Since when is morality irrational? You yourself have stated that many of my arguments have been presented by professors and others. There is nothing irrational in basing one's decisions on a moral foundation. By the way, what Duff is saying is that you cannot judge a crime only by the perceived effect it has on the victim -- because that is subjective. You have to look objectively at the act that causes harm. This is done by observing the impact on society as a whole. Hence my repeated references to the "downward spiral" that follows prostitution into an area.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 27, 2006 12:26:57 GMT -5
what i meant was: since the vices of adultery and pre-marital sex are not illegal, why should the vice of prostitution be illegal? If there was a way to enforce the laws related to adultery, I would be all for it. The difference between those actions and prostitution is solicitation. The prostitutes who are arrested are primarily the ones who walk the streets. so now it's solicitation that's the problem? so make it a crime to solicit sex, why make it a crime to have sex for money? why make it illegal to have sex for money in private then? similarly, a man's sperm is meant for reproduction, yet the porn industry makes its money from men ejaculating for fun, yet its purpose is obviously to produce children. this point is addressed directly in the nussbaum article (though she doesn't address it in the same way as i have just done). i'm sorry you don't see it, but the fact is that much of the suffering can be attributed to the fact that prostitution is illegal and the prostitute is forced to go to a pimp for protection (since legitimate brothels do not exist) etc. etc. it depends on the form of prostitution. freelance prostitution will obviously be far more dangerous than working in a brothel - the law at the moment makes brothels virtually impossible, forcing prostitutes to take the more dangerous option. again, even in a brothel you can't prevent the individual from doing something terrible behind the closed door, but there is at least some security provided by the employer. stalkers, however, are present in every walk of life. none of these reasons are good enough to justify illegality. although many prostitutes' lives are miserable (like the one you depict) some prostitutes enjoy what they do (i can't give you a source for this since it was a radio programme that i listened to - it was on radio 5 live, possibly Anita Anand's show several weeks/months ago). surely it would be easier for the prostitute who decides after a while that she doesn't enjoy it any more to get out of that lifestyle if prostitution were a part of a society, and not on the black market and illegal? think about drug dealing. someone can go and work in a tobacconist or pharmacy and leave whenever they want, but it is often very difficult to get out of a life of dealing illegal drugs. similar regulations designed to protect the prostitute could be introduced (eg. "sound prostitution"). the point is that it is not the criminal law which should be used to regulate it. i'd really love for you to read some of the articles that i cited in my original posts. i'll e-mail them to you if you don't have access to the resources yourself. if the subject ever comes up i don't think i would be afraid to let her know, but i'm not going to phone her up and tell her just out of the blue. if i do tell her at some point i'll try and remember to post a reply on here. would anyone else on here be happy to have a criminal law system based on this line of thinking? of course you are, that's because this is something i do in my free time, not something that i do for study or for work. i might, but in my studies i'm referred to so many authors that i don't have time to look into the lives of all of them. where is your citation of that article? i see there is a link in there but it doesn't lead anywhere, was this meant to be it? your marxist arguments (that the prostitute sells herself, not just sexual services) are presented by carole pateman in the article i cite. what i said about morality was that ericsson addresses the issue of "morality" as a basis for the criminal law (not that he advocates it as a basis for the criminal law). his conclusion is: To say that prostitution is intrinsically immoral is in a way to refuse to give any arguments. The moralist simply "senses" or "sees" its immorality. And this terminates rational discussion at the point where it should begin. Ericsson, "Charges Against Prostitution: An Attempt at a Philosophical Assessment", Ethics, vol.90, No.3 (Apr. 1980), pp. 335-366 (at p.339) basing your morality on the bible is no stronger a basis. i'd really like you to look at some of the articles i cited back on page 1. ericsson and nussbaum present the basic arguments that i'm showing here (ericsson analyses all the different attempted justifications for the illegality of prostitution - nussbaum compares prostitution to other jobs). pateman presents a direct response to ericsson's treatment of the feminist argument along the marxist lines that i show no respect for, but shrage presents a more thought-out feminist response (she says that feminism should be against prostitution in its current form, though does not comment on the issue of legality). schwarzenbach's article debates the issues raised by the ericsson, pateman and shrage articles, eventually supporting the decrmininalisation of prostitution from a feminist point of view. the mcleod article looks at the recent (at the time) british government discussion of prostitution, eventually concluding that it should be legalized, except where it infringes other general offences. take your pick (PM me if you can't get them yourself).
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 27, 2006 14:30:22 GMT -5
Reality is that behavior that causes harm should be illegal. I see. Since your 'much more superior' morality dictates to you that since it is immoral it has to be made illegal and stay illegal, even with all the evidence that shows that prostitution being illegal is causing more problems than when it is not illegal, you merely have to dismiss/ignore/minimalise the evidence in order to continue backing your 'vastly superior' morality. You have shon to be extremely adept at it, even though you must constantly create strawman in order to do so.
|
|