Is it hypocritical to be pro-choice AND against legalizing prostitution?

[BrettStah]

I think so - my wife does not agree.

Seriously... if it's "my body, my choice" for abortions, why not have the same exact opinion about prostitution?

[dcheesi]

I can see your point, but my first reaction was that the two are completely separate issues. One involves a medical procedure, whereas the other is a transaction and activity between two (or more ) people.

Prostitution also has social-health* consequences (spreading diseases). And personal health of the sex-worker as well; OSHA probably wouldn't allow it on that basis alone...

(* there's a real term that fits what I mean here, but I can't recall it atm).

[busyba]

Originally Posted by BrettStah

I think so - my wife does not agree.

Seriously... if it's "my body, my choice" for abortions, why not have the same exact opinion about prostitution?

Well, I think the point where your comparison breaks down is that the laws against prostitution do not regulate what a woman can do with her body, they regulate the related financial transaction.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by dcheesi

Prostitution also has social-health* consequences (spreading diseases). And personal health of the sex-worker as well; OSHA probably wouldn't allow it on that basis alone...

Seems to work fine in Nevada.

[Gai-jin]

I've got to agree with you Brett. If a person has the right to do whatever they want with their body so long as it doesn't hurt others, then prostitution would definitely be included.

[dcheesi]

Originally Posted by Otto

Seems to work fine in Nevada.

Yeah, I guess the OSHA part is a stretch.

I find it odd to be arguing against legalized prostitution, as I'd actually tend to support it. But if you're looking for arguments, I can clearly see where it could be considered a public health issue (I remembered! ). Of course that argument would have more weight if making it illegal actually stopped it from happening...

[JETarpon]

Originally Posted by Gai-jin

I've got to agree with you Brett. If a person has the right to do whatever they want with their body so long as it doesn't hurt others, then prostitution would definitely be included.

And drugs should be legalized, as well.

[dcheesi]

Originally Posted by JETarpon

And drugs should be legalized, as well.

Again I find myself playing Devil's Advocate on an issue I agree with: What about involuntary commitment? We lock people away in hospitals if they're a danger to themselves or others. Yet certain drugs are highly likely to turn someone into a danger, and are so addictive that they'll be that way all the time (or even worse when they "crash"). Does it make sense to let them do the drugs and then lock them up as "crazy"? They'd just be denied the drug in the asylum anyway. But you really don't want, say, a paranoid meth-head just walking the streets...

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by BrettStah

I think so - my wife does not agree.

Seriously... if it's "my body, my choice" for abortions, why not have the same exact opinion about prostitution?

I think you're exactly right, if that's the reason that someone is pro-choice.

[TheIndependent]

Originally Posted by pseudonym

I think you're exactly right, if that's the reason that someone is pro-choice.

what other reasons are there? like to kill babies? funWithFetusExplosions.com?

i've always thought the overwhelming argument used by pro-abortion was that it was the woman's body and she was in control of whether to use it to have a child.

[aindik]

I agree with the OP. It's either "my body, my choice," or it's not. Funny that the NOW is one of the organizations at the forefront of wanting to ban not only prostitution but also sillicone breast implants.

"My body my choice" is a very libertarian phrase. To bad most of the people who use it do so very inconsistently.

In the reverse, though, I don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-abortion and pro-legalization of prostitution. You can consistently have the theory that "my body my choice" applies to consenting adults (hence, choice), and that in an abortion the fetus has a body but no choice.

[mercurial]

The "libertarian" in me says legalize drugs and prostitution. The "democrat" in me says tax and regulate them both and use the money for prevention and treatment programs for drugs and health checks for the sex trade. The "republican" in me is very uncomfortable with this conversation.

[TheIndependent]

Originally Posted by aindik

In the reverse, though, I don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-abortion and pro-legalization of prostitution. You can consistently have the theory that "my body my choice" applies to consenting adults (hence, choice), and that in an abortion the fetus has a body but no choice.

i agree with this. i'm anti-abortion past a certain point in the development (brain function), for the reasons outlined above.

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by aindik

I agree with the OP. It's either "my body, my choice," or it's not. Funny that the NOW is one of the organizations at the forefront of wanting to ban not only prostitution but also sillicone breast implants.

Are they at the forefront of wanting to ban prostitution? I know that they're at the forefront of rescuing poor women and immigrants from a life of prostitution, but that's not really the same thing.

The thing about prostitution as it exists now is that it's a lifestyle that women don't always get into voluntarily. Often they are underage, or immigrants working in virtual indentured servitude, or doing it as a last, desperate resort. I think legalizing and regulating it would actually help improve some of these problems, but I can't blame NOW for being against prostitution in the forms it usually takes.

That said, I don't really know what their official stance on prostitution is.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by dcheesi

Again I find myself playing Devil's Advocate on an issue I agree with: What about involuntary commitment? We lock people away in hospitals if they're a danger to themselves or others. Yet certain drugs are highly likely to turn someone into a danger, and are so addictive that they'll be that way all the time (or even worse when they "crash").

It's all about the dosage and quality and such. There's very few drugs out there that are unsafe at any dosage.

How many people do you see cooking up cigarettes to make stronger forms of nicotine? When a drug is packaged and sold in a relatively safe and convenient dosage, you don't get nearly as much abuse of it.

Methylamphetamine is a potent stimulant and a neurotoxin to boot. But so is caffeine. It's all about quantity and packaging.

[aindik]

Even the name "pro-choice" suggests an aversion to laws regulating the sexual practices of adults.

[JP]

Originally Posted by aindik

Even the name "pro-choice" suggests an aversion to laws regulating the sexual practices of adults.

As "pro-life" suggests an aversion to the death penalty? Yet you don't often see those two together, anti-abortion and anti-death-penalty.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by JPriller

As "pro-life" suggests an aversion to the death penalty? Yet you don't often see those two together, anti-abortion and anti-death-penalty.

Yeah, but pro-life is a crappy undefined position anyway. Ask some pro-lifers if they think that abortion should be illegal and you'll get a wide range of answers.

I thought the video where they asked the pro-lifers what the penalty should be for a woman getting an illegal abortion was quite good. Wish I could find a link to it now...

[bigpuma]

Originally Posted by mercurial

The "libertarian" in me says legalize drugs and prostitution. The "democrat" in me says tax and regulate them both and use the money for prevention and treatment programs for drugs and health checks for the sex trade. The "republican" in me is very uncomfortable with this conversation.

The "Psychiatrist" in me thinks you should be evaluated for MPD.

[mercurial]

Originally Posted by bigpuma

The "Psychiatrist" in me thinks you should be evaluated for MPD.

The "scientologist" in me thinks you should be shot for suggesting that.

[JYoung]

Originally Posted by mercurial

The "libertarian" in me says legalize drugs and prostitution. The "democrat" in me says tax and regulate them both and use the money for prevention and treatment programs for drugs and health checks for the sex trade. The "republican" in me is very uncomfortable with this conversation.

What does the Green Partier in you say?

[grondramb]

Is it hypocritical to be pro-choice AND against legalizing prostitution?

Beyond hypocritical and into whatever comes after that.

[mercurial]

Originally Posted by JYoung

What does the Green Partier in you say?

That we should ram zodiac rafts into the prostitutes and drug dealers until they stop whaling...

[dcheesi]

Originally Posted by Otto

It's all about the dosage and quality and such. There's very few drugs out there that are unsafe at any dosage.

How many people do you see cooking up cigarettes to make stronger forms of nicotine? When a drug is packaged and sold in a relatively safe and convenient dosage, you don't get nearly as much abuse of it.

Methylamphetamine is a potent stimulant and a neurotoxin to boot. But so is caffeine. It's all about quantity and packaging.

But you *do* see people grinding up time-release pain pills to release the drug all at once. It all depends on the drug.

Caffeine produces some strong negative effects at higher doses that are apparent to the user even as he's using (IOW if you take too much caffeine you feel worse instead of better), which naturally limits overconsumption. I'm not as familiar with nicotine, but suspect that there are similar issues at play there.