Why is prostitution illegal?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't mean to be insulting, and I can see, from a mile away, where you're going with this, but I'm sorry, your slope is getting slipperier and slipperier all the time. The analogy is weak and you are trying to pander to morality.

Congratulations - three logical fallacies in one quote.


...I'm off to the gym....


EDITED TO ADD: Wait. Four. It's a red herring as well......

And still no answer. Not that I expect to get a coherent answer from any of you.

Probably best just to ignore the tough questions so you can continue to believe you have all the answers.

 

[JFrankA]

And still no answer. Not that I expect to get a coherent answer from any of you.

Probably best just to ignore the tough questions so you can continue to believe you have all the answers.

Grrrrrrr. : Okay. Fine.

I will answer your question and I will also explain why this is a logical fallacy pertaining to the topic:

That isn't an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was should consenting adults be able to buy and sell non-essential organs (e.g., blood products, bone marrow, kidneys, pieces of liver, sperm, eggs, etc.) if the trade was regulated?

The next question (which is not going to be answered) is should infants (i.e. children less than 1 year old) be able to be bought and sold (for sake of argument say only once), if the trade was regulated?

What you are doing is mixing up human trafficking with prostitution. Essentially you are trying to point out that if a person believes that the above scenarios are morally wrong, then one should believe that prostitution is as well.

Doesn't jive. Here's why. It's been stated, in the very thread, that prostitution is NOT the same thing as human trafficking. Now human trafficking can occur within the scope of prostitution, but, human trafficking can also occur with the chocolate industry, the toothpaste industry and domestic services among others.

In the case of selling a baby, there could be human trafficking too, but if a couple in the US wants to adopt a baby from another country, they can do it, and there comes with it a fee.

is should infants (i.e. children less than 1 year old) be able to be bought and sold (for sake of argument say only once), if the trade was regulated?

Yes. It's already happening. http://adoptionsfromthehear.rtrk.com/?scid=438270&kw=3491010

And now onto your first question:

The question I asked was should consenting adults be able to buy and sell non-essential organs (e.g., blood products, bone marrow, kidneys, pieces of liver, sperm, eggs, etc.) if the trade was regulated?

YES.

One can donate them anyway. Hey, sperm IS paid for, so are eggs, so are surrogate mothers! http://www.conceptualoptions.com/fertility_financing.htm

So is your point that it's okay for a woman to sell her body to a couple to hold a baby for them, but it is not okay for a woman to sell her body for the purpose of giving pleasure to another human being?

Get over yourself. Both of your cases are already happening, and guess what, in all cases it's being done legally, illegally, with the person wanting to do it because they want to, or because they need the money.

I'm sorry I'm being so harsh but I'm tired of these red herrings and the "trap" you think you put us pro-legalize prostitution people in.

Bottom line is both of your question is YES. They are occurring right now legally. What you were trying to refer to, trying to trap us with your slippery slope, red herring, your appeal to morality and your weak association doesn't fly.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What you are doing is mixing up human trafficking with prostitution.

No, I'm not.

Essentially you are trying to point out that if a person believes that the above scenarios are morally wrong, then one should believe that prostitution is as well.

Yes, I am.

Doesn't jive. Here's why. It's been stated, in the very thread, that prostitution is NOT the same thing as human trafficking.

I know that.

Now human trafficking can occur within the scope of prostitution, but, human trafficking can also occur with the chocolate industry, the toothpaste industry and domestic services among others.

Yes, I'm sure women being trafficked are equally disappointed and harmed when they are coerced into getting jobs packing toothpaste or being prostitutes. I mean, having some ugly bloke penetrate you against your will is generally no more traumatic than being forced to work in a field or a factory.

In the case of selling a baby, there could be human trafficking too, but if a couple in the US wants to adopt a baby from another country, they can do it, and there comes with it a fee.

A fee, if changed at all, is for administration and reasonable costs associated with the raising of the child. It is not done for profit.

Yes. It's already happening. http://adoptionsfromthehear.rtrk.com/?scid=438270&kw=3491010

Really?

Adoptions From The Heart is a private, non-profit, non-sectarian adoption agency, licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia, and approved for placing children with Connecticut families.

And now onto your first question:



YES.

One can donate them anyway. Hey, sperm IS paid for, so are eggs, so are surrogate mothers! http://www.conceptualoptions.com/fertility_financing.htm

Sperm donors get a nominal fee (at least in the UK). As for egg donation:

http://www.theafa.org/library/article/embryo_donation_prospective_recipients/

Picking Up the Tab
Recipient couples will bear all of the costs relating to the transfer. This will include donor screening and blood work, and the costs of thawing, culture, and transfer of the embryos. Many programs require you to bear (or pick up) the counseling fees for the donors as well. These costs, in 2005, should range from about $2500-$4000. In addition, you may incur other medical costs, as well as legal, psychological counseling and travel expenses.

I don't see anything in the above about donors haggling with recipients over price, or any coercion of donors, who are psychologically screened before being allowed to become donors, and provide fully informed consent, something which is generally not possible with prostitution.

So is your point that it's okay for a woman to sell her body to a couple to hold a baby but not for giving pleasure for another human being?

No. My point is neither should be done for direct (i.e. the seller negotiating with buyer) economic reasons because there is too great an opportunity for exploitation. In all cases fully informed consent should be obtained from both parties.

Get over yourself. Both of your cases are already happening, and guess what, in all cases it's being done legally, illegally, with and without desire.

I'm sorry I'm being so harsh but I'm tired of these red herrings and the "trap" you think you put us pro-legalize prostitution people in.

Bottom line is both of your question is YES. They are occurring right now legally. What you were trying to refer to, trying to trap us with your slippery slope, red herring, your appeal to morality and your weak association doesn't fly.

What I do find interesting about your opinion is how focussed it is on the two individuals buying and selling <insert product or service here>. You seem to be able to completely ignore the wider ramifications of what has been shown to happen when you set up a legal market in sex. It's a very American way of thinking that so long as a few people benefit, it doesn't matter that even more suffer.

 

[JFrankA]

What I do find interesting about your opinion is how focussed it is on the two individuals buying and selling <insert product or service here>. You seem to be able to completely ignore the wider ramifications of what has been shown to happen when you set up a legal market in sex. It's a very American way of thinking that so long as a few people benefit, it doesn't matter that even more suffer.

*sigh*

Here I go down the slide. Sorry, everyone....

What I find interesting is that you have decided that you seem to think that I do. What I also find interesting is that you have a blind eye to the fact that even though it's illegal, everyone loses. The system, as it stands, doesn't work. Even with your precious "Swedish law" doesn't work.

You insist that there will be ramifications, well, guess what? THEY ALREADY EXIST. They are happening, even with it being illegal.

Isn't it a good idea to legally protect people who are involved in the industry without resorting to abusing the system and other humans, and then go after the ones who are?

I am not saying legalizing it will solve the problem completely, but it's a big step in getting to the real "bad guys".

Keeping it in status quo does nothing. And you sitting there, waving your morals around does not help the people in the business who are suffering either.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Even with your precious "Swedish law" doesn't work.

<snip>

How do you know this?

 

[Mark6]

So could I argue that any kind of paid labor is slavery enforced by poverty?

Well, dann seems to be arguing exactly that. And brings up Marxist websites to "prove" his point.

 

[Mark6]

That isn't an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was should consenting adults be able to buy and sell non-essential organs (e.g., blood products, bone marrow, kidneys, pieces of liver, sperm, eggs, etc.) if the trade was regulated?

Yes, they should.

The next question (which is not going to be answered) is should infants (i.e. children less than 1 year old) be able to be bought and sold (for sake of argument say only once), if the trade was regulated?

Hell, yes! Who do you think is going to love the child more and give this child better care -- people willing to sell it, or people willing (and able) to pay thousands of dollars AND jump through all government-enforced hoops to buy it?

Neither has much to do with prostitution.

 

[JFrankA]

How do you know this?

:

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, they should.


Hell, yes! Who do you think is going to love the child more and give this child better care -- people willing to sell it, or people willing (and able) to pay thousands of dollars AND jump through all government-enforced hoops to buy it?

Neither has much to do with prostitution.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465200_2

National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) Bans Buying and Selling
NOTA is the cornerstone of the federal system for organ transplantation[2] In response to Jacobs' proposal, NOTA included language that made it a crime "for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce." At the time, Congress was exceptionally concerned about the rise of an organ market and mindful of the potential inequities that could arise if destitute donors were coerced into selling their organs. The Senate Report accompanying NOTA stated that "human body parts should not be viewed as commodities."[3]

 

[dann]

And YOUR fairytale ignores the fact that Marxism never managed to eliminate either poverty or prostitution. Prostitution was common in Soviet Union, and still is in Cuba.

Prostitution is not ”still” common in Cuba. It is common again. When poverty returned with the Special Period, so did prostitution.

In the pre-1950s era, Cuba's prostitution industry was rampant. It is estimated there were more than 100,000 women of the night on this small island before Castro took control. After Castro took control in the 1950s, promising to abolish prostitution, the trade became almost extinct for the next 35 years.
http://www.american.edu/TED/cubatour.htm

Propped by $ 4 billion in annual Soviet subsidies, the Cuban economy allowed women (and men) to meet their basic needs without needing to trade in their bodies.
Over the past decade, however, Soviet subsidies disappeared and trading partners were lost. Prostitution has come back. Despite government claims that it remains committed to elimi¬nating the sex trade, prostitution continues, albeit at reduced levels from several years ago. Increased prostitution in Cuba is a byproduct of the economic crisis precipitated by the col¬lapse of the Soviet Union and the economic reforms initiated in 1993-94.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Y...lnk&cd=7&gl=dk

Prostitution was targeted for eradication and consequently, massive sweeps of the cities eliminated bordellos and put former prostitutes in trade schools. (Holgado, 234). Cuba was no longer America’s whore and Cuban women were no longer the sexual objects of the foreigners.
(…)
Cuban prostitutes are not necessarily uneducated country girls. These women “are educated professionals who work as prostitutes at night in addition to their jobs.” (Perkovich and Saini, 434). The most over-represented group within these circles, of course, is the black woman and the mulatto because “they are underrepresented in the exterior of the country, so they do not have family to send them remissions in dollars.” (Holgado, 236: my translation)
(…)
What the government fails to realize is that these are not deviant Jezebels out to give Cuban women a bad name; many are single mothers or young women out to make money to buy basic necessities such as cooking oil and soap. Adriana, a 20-year-old jinetera remarks, “there are many jineteras that do this to survive, out of necessity, to maintain their families, or because they have children and the father cannot/does not support them. He may have left to the U.S. and left her alone” (Holgado 246 my translation). (…) The solution to this problem is not a legal one, but an economic one. If these women were provided with adequate support from the government, good salaries, decent rations prostitution would not be necessary. Absent an economic improvement, it will remain a way for Cuban women to utilize their exotic sexuality to survive.
(…)
To conclude, Fidel Castro’s government has overall been a mixed bag for Cuban women. Free education, abortion rights, and ascension into the workforce have brought women freedoms unmatched in other Caribbean nations. Yet, poverty and the resultant rise in prostitution, the “separate spheres” mentality, and lack of support for single mothers create for Cuban women a paradoxical situation.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:P...lnk&cd=9&gl=dk
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3275287#post3275287

And these quotation don't come from pro-Castro sites!

 

[dann]

If it's about exploitation, or drug use, or troubled childhoods or whatever then we should make all jobs disproportionately performed by exploited people, drug users, people from broken homes and so on illegal. (I'm utterly clueless as to how people can pretend with a straight face that this would help those people, but they seem to manage to do it).

I'm all for abolishing every kind of exploitation, by getting rid of the market economy, which

... is the reason why poverty is such a splendid opportunity for people with money: Poor people are not only willing to do things that they find disgusting, they are forced to do so, not by a feudal despot, but by the wonderful compulsion of their financial circumstances. This is the logic of free will and free enterprise for poor people: They have the same constitutional rights as the people with money to exert their will to choose, but in their case the free choice is not one of deciding between investing in bordellos or stocks and bonds. They have to choose between all the glorious offers from people with private property who are thus able to pick and choose: If they want (poor) people to work for them in their factories, fields or sweat shops, they have the money to pay them and thus command over (sometimes) all their waking hours. And if they want (poor) people for sex they have the freedom to pay them to overcome their dislike and aversion to do so.

This is then what constitutes the much celebrated choices of the poor – if they have even those. If they are too weak or too old, working in a sweat shop may be out of the question, and if they are sexually unattractive, selling their sexual favours also is not an option.
The rich are free to decide whose sexual favours to buy. The poor have the liberty to exert their freedom to starve.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3279139#post3279139

 

[JFrankA]

Okay, making the slope slipperier: this does not make organ donation illegal. It is a REGULATION to help stop what you are crusading against.

And here is the slippery slope and the weak association.

organ harvesting is NOT prostitution...

To continue:

No. My point is neither should be done for direct (i.e. the seller negotiating with buyer) economic reasons because there is too great an opportunity for exploitation. In all cases fully informed consent should be obtained from both parties.

So I'm putting question to you: How does the "Sweden law" accomplish this?

By legalizing prostitution and having regulations, much like the porno industry does, much like how organ transplants does, much like international adaption does, would be a start to do what you are claiming I do not care about.

Funny how you keep claiming that I am ignoring the people who are suffering by trying to find a solution that protects the innocent people in the business (both client and service person) and pave the way so that the efforts go to the actual abusers, yet you just want to put a band-aid on it and call it "solved"...

To me, that's what it looks like you are saying.

Also, I get the distinct impression that I'm getting another agenda: captialism is bad.

Now can we get off this red herring?

 

[Mark6]

Prostitution is not ”still” common in Cuba. It is common again. When poverty returned with the Special Period, so did prostitution.

Propped by $ 4 billion in annual Soviet subsidies, the Cuban economy allowed women (and men) to meet their basic needs without needing to trade in their bodies.

Which is BS. I grew up in USSR. I know prostitution was commonplace -- government just hid the statistics (or never bothered to collect it in the first place). "Basic needs" were NOT met in USSR -- how would they be met in a client country? My father -- an architect, -- had luck to visit Cuba once, to design buildings. He told me Cuban girls would come to ther hotel and ask for food in exchange for sex -- not even money! (He never told me whether he took them up on it.)

 

[Mark6]

Prostitution was targeted for eradication and consequently, massive sweeps of the cities eliminated bordellos and put former prostitutes in trade schools.

That is true. What the source omits is that people doing "trades" in Cuba -- and in USSR, for that matter, -- lived on the edge of starvation. Soviet Union had few full-time prostitutes, because not having a job was illegal -- she'd be arrested and sent to gulag. Not for prostitution per se (it was a crime, but not a prison offence), but for being a "parasite" -- official term for anyone not working. But living on one's salary meant poverty -- common Soviet curse was "May you live on your salary alone!" So people did what they could to improve their lot. Including selling their bodies -- usually to foreigners, since prostituting one's self to equally poor Russians made little sense. And in Cuba, Russians were "visiting rich foreigners."

 

[Mark6]

"Basic needs" were NOT met in USSR -- how would they be met in a client country?

Now that I think of it, "basic needs" in USSR were technically met -- nobody actually starved to death, and apartments did not freeze in winter. But if you wanted something more than absolute survival minimum (like meat which is not mostly gristle, and clothes which actually have color)... you worked the black market or prostituted. Or something else illegal.

 

[Mark6]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465200_2

And your point is? Yes, buying and selling organs in US is illegal. I knew that. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you. I think this law is wrong, and leads to more people dying who could have been saved.

And it is still off-topic, and has very little to do with prostitution.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think it is of critical relevance. I want to know what the people I'm conversing with think is and is not acceptable human behaviour and why.



No, consenting adults should be allowed to have sex.



That isn't an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was should consenting adults be able to buy and sell non-essential organs (e.g., blood products, bone marrow, kidneys, pieces of liver, sperm, eggs, etc.) if the trade was regulated?

The next question (which is not going to be answered) is should infants (i.e. children less than 1 year old) be able to be bought and sold (for sake of argument say only once), if the trade was regulated?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What I do find interesting about your opinion is how focussed it is on the two individuals buying and selling <insert product or service here>. You seem to be able to completely ignore the wider ramifications of what has been shown to happen when you set up a legal market in sex. It's a very American way of thinking that so long as a few people benefit, it doesn't matter that even more suffer.

State what you think those ramifications are and provide evidence that counters the studies I gave about the effect of decriminalization in New Zealand.

You could have saved an entire page of irrelevancies if you had just stated your case instead of trying to "trap" the people you are arguing with.

 

[skeptifem]

how the hell is selling organs comparable? you dont actually sell your sex organs permanently. Its as much 'selling your body' as you are selling your hands if you make sandwhiches for a living. its a service not a product. And comparing it to selling babies- frickin please. You arent selling your person more than you are for any other kind of job.

I admit that prostitution has the potential to be harmful to people who cannot emotionally handle it, but the same can be said for many lines of work. Working in emergency medicine or hospitals(even just cleaning rooms or being a security officer or clerk), in the funeral industry, prisons, working with the mentall ill, parole/probation officers, social workers, etc all have potentially emotionally damaging jobs that are often done for a personal profit.

even if that wasnt true or if you dislike the idea of prostitution... having it stay illegal does a lot more harm than good for every person involved with it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

how the hell is selling organs comparable? you dont actually sell your sex organs permanently. Its as much 'selling your body' as you are selling your hands if you make sandwhiches for a living. its a service not a product. And comparing it to selling babies- frickin please. You arent selling your person more than you are for any other kind of job.

The reason the buying and selling of organs and infants in civilised parts of the world is illegal is because it is recognised that no matter what regulation is put in place, these situtations are ripe for exploitation.

Looking at the areas of the world which have legalised prostitution it appears to have little to no impact on the exploitative/criminal aspects of the trade. Things stay pretty much the same, except the market generally grows, because buying sex becomes defensible as "just another service".

I admit that prostitution has the potential to be harmful to people who cannot emotionally handle it, but the same can be said for many lines of work. Working in emergency medicine or hospitals(even just cleaning rooms or being a security officer or clerk), in the funeral industry, prisons, working with the mentall ill, parole/probation officers, social workers, etc all have potentially emotionally damaging jobs that are often done for a personal profit.

They are, in general, salaried jobs. Somehow I don't think many prostitutes would accept being paid a salary for what they do.

As for the emotional toll of, say, working in emergency medicine compared to prostitution, there is no comparison. The emotional toll of prostitution is more similar to that experienced by soldiers after hand to hand combat on a battlefield. It is quite clear from reading how many prostitutes do not allow kissing that they have to shut down emotionally to perform their work.

even if that wasnt true or if you dislike the idea of prostitution... having it stay illegal does a lot more harm than good for every person involved with it.

So get rid of the punters. Change how men in our societies perceive women. Feminists claim they want equality, but they really don't seem to have the balls to do what's required to achieve it.

Or are most women happy that many men consider them mainly as providers of sex for payment/reward?

That's the attitude legalising prostitution reinforces.