- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.
Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?
Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."
Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.
What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?
What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?
Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?
Just goes to show that money can buy anything that an owner is willing to put a price on.
Human organ trade is illegal.
Human organ trade is illegal.
But should it be that way? Should we really be allowed to take advantage of each other in such a way? I think we need to acknowledge that certain people in society are more vulnerable than others, and offer them some sort of protection.
By restricting their liberty? Hmm...
Not everywhere in the States is it illegal. And the morality of prostitution is subjective. It can be shown that whats considered mainstream dating can be a form of prostitution. So really where is this subjective line drawn? SHould it be illegal for people on dates to spend money on their date?So is prostitution. Yet most seem to think that law is wrong.
Perhaps because of where it could lead? Ghettos with hacked up poor people most likely.If it is your organs why can't you sell them?
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
Perhaps they would use the money for a upgrade to better eyes? Ones mans junk is anothers treasure?
You redirected me here, so I'll do you the favour of replying to these questions.
You ask for a yes-or-no answer, but you know that's hard to do. (That's also why I asked what the cons of the legalisation of prostitution would be.)
If I have to give such a short answer, though, I'd have to say no. You mention the psychological disorders, the suicides, etc., as if it's a given fact that it happens in all cases, to all prostitutes, under any circumstances. But that's not the case. Removing someone's eyes, however, cannot be done without... well, removing someone's eyes. Many prostitutes, however, don't show any signs of mental illnesses or suicidal tendencies. Plus, if it were made legal, I think it'd be more likely for those problems to diminish rather than grow.
Lastly, a lot of people have eating disorders, and that doesn't mean that food should be made illegal, though it can be the primary cause of the problem. People need to eat; these girls either desperately need money to eat, or they enjoy doing it, or they are forced to do it (but that could be partly taken care of by legalising it). They're not killing anyone; they are simply providing a service. It's a hole and something entering it. If that were so dramatic, golf would be a great sport.
This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.
Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?
Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."
Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.
What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?
What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?
Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?
My support for the legalization of prostitution is premised on the fact that prostitution is real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Because it is a real, immovable, pervasive part of society, it ought to be legalized so that it can be regulated in order to reduce the damage that it does to prostitutes, their clients and society, at large. Sadistic billionaires who pay people for their eyes are not a real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Therefore, I see no benefit to making the actions you describe legal.This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.
Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?
Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."
Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.
What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?
What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?
Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?
Yes to everything.
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
My support for the legalization of prostitution is premised on the fact that prostitution is real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Because it is a real, immovable, pervasive part of society, it ought to be legalized so that it can be regulated in order to reduce the damage that it does to prostitutes, their clients and society, at large. Sadistic billionaires who pay people for their eyes are not a real, immovable, pervasive part of society. Therefore, I see no benefit to making the actions you describe legal.
No on children. Conditional on mentally impaired, if it's self impairment or outside their control matters IMO. The issue in all such cases is we pay a price as a society in making it illegal (see prohibition type reactions), in the black market, tax implications (least of the issues but it's real), the general idea that if we do this with most laws everyone is breaking some law at some point, there's blackmail and corruption that can result, etc.
What we may discover as a society is that if we allow certain freedoms to take their course, we may adjust favorably to them over time. It's definitely a complicated problem because it involves society, pros/cons on both sides, and is really hard to scientifically analyze.
No to these two only, considering both of these people are not mentally fit and therefore cannot be held liable to a binding contract.
What liberty do they really have, if they're so desperate for money that they would sell their gift of sight?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?