17 Sep 08
Originally posted by kmax87The question of whether one has a right to life is a separate issue from whether others acknowledge and respect that right.
Pretty much sums up the lot of anyone who lived through and survived ww1 ww2 the Korean war the Vietnam war, the 6 day war, the interfada, the sectarian violence of northern Ireland, the Bosnian conflict operation desert storm/shield Iraq war and a whole other host of conflicts that I'm sure you can Google.
17 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeySurely whether one practices safe sex is the biggest factor in determining the risk of HIV transmission.
So you are saying that sense the entire world is not one big social welfare state that this is what is responsible for what we see today regarding the "evils" of prostitution? I don't know how I can argue that position simply because the world is not like that as of yet.
As far as other arguments, of course I do have them. In fact, how would you feel if ...[text shortened]... tions of spreading STD's is your call, however, as a society we must call a spade a spade.
17 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeySurely each individual is free to decide for themselves whether to engage in casual sex or "promiscuity". It's not the place of government to decide this sort of question for its citizens by using force to intimidate them into following particular cultural mores.
My main concern is the promotion of the practice. For example, does having it legalized promote greater numbers of prostitutes? In addition, does it promote greater numbers of individuals hiring prostitutes? In addition, does legalizing it create a far more laissez faire attitude toward sexual promiscuity? In addition, does legalized prostitution contribu ...[text shortened]... am not sure how one could run statistics about such questions but I view them of great concern.
As for the erosion of the "family unit", this is such a vague concept that I'm not sure how it would be measured, as you say. In any case, legalising something is not the same as endorsing it; it's simply saying that it's not appropriate for the government to intrude on the personal choices made between consenting adults. It's not the appropriate role of government to use force to impose the "family unit", whatever that means, upon society.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
17 Sep 08
Originally posted by SeitseNo offense taken. 🙂
Why some people are always prompt to shout, even [b]unasked, "I have never used prostitutes"? As if it was something "bad" or shameful, sheesh.
Edit. Sorry, badwater, I don't mean to have a go at you.[/b]
I clarified some because I think it's unusual for someone like me, who really thinks that prostitution is stupid and a waste of money and time, to not be opposed to it.
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by karnachzNo its not....and don't call me surely.
Surely whether one practices safe sex is the biggest factor in determining the risk of HIV transmission.
The biggest factor regarding HIV transmission is promiscuity. Safe sex may be safer but not the answer to its cure.
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by karnachzAs I have already stated, the laws on the books in the US regarding prostitution are by in large ignored. For example, escort services run rampant and unchecked, the porno industry runs rampant and unchecked, etc. The only behavior that seems to have been checked is street walking which should be made illegal due to its inherent dangers.
[b]Surely each individual is free to decide for themselves whether to engage in casual sex or "promiscuity". It's not the place of government to decide this sort of question for its citizens by using force to intimidate them into following particular cultural mores.
18 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey"Which should be made illegal" means "which should be punished by men with guns", whodey! You say you aren't talking about penalties, but that's what making prostitution illegal is! Penalizing prostitutes! In what way should we chastise these prostitutes? Take their money? Lock them away? Get a little forced labor from them maybe (and no I don't mean the obvious, hardy har, I mean community service and prison labor)?
As I have already stated, the laws on the books in the US regarding prostitution are by in large ignored. For example, escort services run rampant and unchecked, the porno industry runs rampant and unchecked, etc. The only behavior that seems to have been checked is street walking which should be made illegal due to its inherent dangers.
Who are you to demand these penalties of these women who act of their own free will and hurt no one else?
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by kmax87People that 'lived through and survived" did not have their right to life violated, they survived.
Pretty much sums up the lot of anyone who lived through and survived ww1 ww2 the Korean war the Vietnam war, the 6 day war, the interfada, the sectarian violence of northern Ireland, the Bosnian conflict operation desert storm/shield Iraq war and a whole other host of conflicts that I'm sure you can Google.
I guess you were getting all worked up and not thinking straight, probably meant all those that didn't make it eh, hardly a typo but we'll move past it. You also didn't mention the thousands murdered in stand alone events muggings, crimes of passion etc, or the millions in this incomplete list:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
People have right to life, rights cannot be conferred because a right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. You do not need to seek mine or Ken Rudds permission to live.
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by KencorpYou have no idea who the clients are and these girls get in their cars to boot and may completely disappear altogether. Either that, or they are mistreated in God knows where with no one there to help them.
What is more dangerous about street prostitution?
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by duecerThat's the grand daddy of all other rights.
not to but in, but I believe the right to life is absolute.
HoH has some issues with this one?
Kmax has some issues with this one?
The 'right to live' is a better way of stating it. The right to life can be mistaken to mean that others must provide you with the means to sustain your life. The right to live is more accurate, just means others cannot take it away, it may be violated, yes, but not taken away.
All rights have one proviso, you have them as long as you respect others rights. So if someone is threatening your right to live you are justified in removing that threat.
18 Sep 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, I suppose it depends on the situation. For example, you may have some prostitutes that know that they are HIV+ but continue in their practice. These prostitutes should face severe penalties. Street walkers are often addicted to illegal drugs, therefore, they should be detained for a time to help them get detoxed. From there you could offer them rehabilitation and or job training to offer them a better vocation. Really, I think any thing is better than the state patting them on the back telling them to continue their "good" work and, by the way, let us take a portion of your money for Uncle Sam.
"Which should be made illegal" means "which should be punished by men with guns", whodey! You say you aren't talking about penalties, but that's what making prostitution illegal is! Penalizing prostitutes! In what way should we chastise these prostitutes? Take their money? Lock them away? Get a little forced labor from them maybe (and no I don't mean ...[text shortened]... emand these penalties of these women who act of their own free will and hurt no one else?
18 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyHIV+ prostitutes should be prosecuted for attempted murder, not prostitution. I could say that military men should be criminalized because there's a lot of rape in the military, but that would be a ridiculous argument (even if it were possible to enforce it). Your argument is just as ridiculous.
Well, I suppose it depends on the situation. For example, you may have some prostitutes that know that they are HIV+ but continue in their practice. These prostitutes should face severe penalties. Street walkers are often addicted to illegal drugs, therefore, they should be detained for a time to help them get detoxed. From there you could offer them reha ...[text shortened]... continue their "good" work and, by the way, let us take a portion of your money for Uncle Sam.
Drugs, like prostitution are none of your business. The argument is the same or very similar for both.
I think you need to get it out of your head that law = morality, and that the lack of police action means immoral anarchy with state encouragement and approval.
Sometimes free people do what they do and they don't need the government to be involved at all! Some of us don't sit around looking to Schwartzenegger and Bush for constant moral guidance.
"Detained" means deprived of liberty by men (and women) with guns, pepper spray, batons and handcuffs. This "for their own good"? That self righteous, meddling, "I know better than you how you should live your life and I'm going to force my beliefs on you at the point of a pistol" attitude enrages me, whodey. Get the hell out of other peoples' lives when you haven't been invited and go live your own instead!