2 edits
Originally posted by zakkwylderDefine safe. Is there truly such a thing as "safe sex" or are you only saying that they could be provided a safe environment where they will not get their throats cut?
The government can make a stand by regulating prostitution and making it safe, and while they're at it make a few tax dollars so we can actually pay for that universal health care.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThe bunny ranches in Nevada seem to know what they're doing. Like I said I don't approve of prostitution as is the case with many others, but why should those views be imposed upon those who don't share them. Crime is when you violate someone or something. Prostitution doesn't fall under this category in any way shape or form.
Define safe. Is there truly such a thing as "safe sex" or are you only saying that they could be provided a safe environment where they will not get their throats cut?
Originally posted by whodeyI'm pro-choice with respect to any woman's right to have an abortion in the first two trimesters (up to about 22-24 weeks, given that a fetus can feel pain from about 26 weeks), but I disapprove of this arts project. It's indefensible to intentionally get oneself pregnant with the premeditated intention of having an abortion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
Now, these drugs may very well prevent fertilisation from even occurring given that it takes up to 72 hours after conception for the sperm to reach the egg (*), but nonetheless I disapprove of the reckless disregard for life. I don't consider the rights of a pre-sentient fetus to be significant enough to prevent a woman having an abortion, but I do think even a pre-sentient fetus should have the right to not have its life treated this recklessly.
(*) This may be an evolutionary adaptation to give a woman who has casual sex the chance to have multiple male partners in order for the fastest sperm to be the best positive outlier from more than one sample. Likewise, the location of a woman's clitoris (meaning women can have intercourse with multiple male partners without orgasm), combined with the fact that women can easily have multiple orgasms, suggest a likelihood that the female body is designed for multiple partners.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI read the article you gave me and glanced at the in-article links, except the names.
Consciousness in humans requires the presence of an appropriate neural substrate. Early fetuses lack the appropriate neural substrate. If you're interested in the data, start with the following article in Slate and track the sources:
http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
This article says science cannot measure consciousness as yet, then goes on to "measure" consciousness by saying "current neurology SUGGESTS(emphasis mine) that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain". (I guess the reaction to pain being a measure of consciousness, not the observing of developing neural substructure)
...continuing, the article says, "Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as a sea slug and it's EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain dead."
Is this the evidence you are giving for consciousness developing late in gestation? or do you have more?
Originally posted by rhemalogosNo, I am giving you an article that will point you in the right direction (in particular, to the Gazzaniga book) if you want to research this on your own. Or, you could check out the very good book "The Ethics of Killing" by Jeff McMahan. Either these books will contain in their bibliographies references to the relevant developmental psychology literature.
I read the article you gave me and glanced at the in-article links, except the names.
This article says science cannot measure consciousness as yet, then goes on to "measure" consciousness by saying "current neurology SUGGESTS(emphasis mine) that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first ...[text shortened]... ence you are giving for consciousness developing late in gestation? or do you have more?
2 edits
Originally posted by zakkwylderSo it is your view that so long as no one is "violated" or "violating" when engaged in certain behavoir that it should be "legal"? With this construct, you then run into the problem of what constitutes a "violation"? For example, what of the wives of the customers of these ranches in Nevada? Are they being violated? What of the STD's that one may pass on to another so that they can then pass them on to some one else? Are they being violated? What about the families of the girls who lament the fact that they have chosen this profession? Are they being violated? In fact, what of the girls themselves who are seemingly throwing their lives away while engaged in this activity all for the love of money? Are they violating themselves willfully?
The bunny ranches in Nevada seem to know what they're doing. Like I said I don't approve of prostitution as is the case with many others, but why should those views be imposed upon those who don't share them. Crime is when you violate someone or something. Prostitution doesn't fall under this category in any way shape or form.
As for myself, I don't worry so much about what other people think of my morals nor do I have any trouble expressing them. To not express them publically I think is either hypocritical or neglegent. If I find something to be immoral then I either have a legitimate reason for thinking so or I don't. If I don't then perhaps I should revisit my moral assessment. However, if I do have a legitimate reason I think I owe it to my fellow man to say why publically. It is then up to my fellow man as to whether they agree or not.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIf it were legal, the government could regulate it. Make condoms a tool of the trade. The girls/guys would be tested regularly for STD's. Like I said I don't agree with it but I'm at least willing to look at it objectively. Maybe some families won't agree either, but its not on them to dictate to their adult children what to do with their lives no more than they should about being a doctor or a lawyer. Husbands and wives cheat anyways, nothing will change this. If cheating happens, thats a social problem that should be repaired on that level. It is not the job of the federal governments to play marriage counselor or conscience. I see no reason why people who don't approve of prostitution can't express their views by oppressing others with them by frivolous laws, thats border line socialism and nothing more.
So it is your view that so long as no one is "violated" or "violating" when engaged in certain behavoir that it should be "legal"? With this construct, you then run into the problem of what constitutes a "violation"? For example, what of the wives of the customers of these ranches in Nevada? Are they being violated? What of the STD's that one may pass on ...[text shortened]... d in this activity all for the love of money? Are they violating themselves willfully?
On another note, it is human nature to want to do what we're not allowed to do. Who knows, legalizing the act might take away some of the demand. From what I hear countries with legalized marijuana don't have serious drug problems. As far as violations go, rape is a violation because you abuse someone sexually. Robbery is a violation because you are stealing someone's property. Murder is a violation on account of the fact you are taking someone's life. As far as I'm concerned prostitution is consensual sex with mutual benefit. If you can pay a massage therapist, you should be able to pay for the same benefits south of the border.
1 edit
Further, as regards to violating one's self is concerned, why not just ban tattoos, piercings and fast food so that noone can violate themselves. According to the US gov. I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I take that to mean I can do what I please with my life as long as nobody else is harmed. If I have the right to life, why not have the right to death. Yet they lock you up if you try and ghost yourself. You have a medical condition, death is imminent yet you can't go out painless with some small bit of dignity. People call into question the morality of such things. Or more accurately described is it right before the eye's of God. Well I have news theres a separation of church and state. Leave God out of the laws, some people don't believe in God. The same politicians who enforce the teaching of evolution in schools end every speech with God bless America. Its hypocrisy and nothing less. To each their own as long as they don't hurt others while doing it I say. If people can't be happy with that, then maybe Hoover was onto something.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: If only one person is dissuaded from engaging in such high risk behavior I say it is worth being made illegal.
So you find prostitution immoral yet you will not stand up for your morals by saying it should be made illegal?
I assume you have good reasons for saying it is immoral? I am also equally sure you would hate to have your daughter, for example, become a prostitute yet you have no problem with other people doing it?
Just because something is made legal o ...[text shortened]... rson is dissuaded from engaging in such high risk behavior I say it is worth being made illegal.
By that "logic", it should be a capital crime for any adult to engage in sex; you never know what MAY be "high risk behavior".
The concept of a limited government precludes personal moral choices from being adopted as part of the criminal law in Lockean democracies. Not every country agrees with that; your views are more popular in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, for instance.
I personally don't have any problem with saying something is immoral but not insisting it be made a criminal offense with prison sentences awaiting those who don't agree with my ideas of morality.
Originally posted by whodeyI assume you also find adultery and fornication morally objectionable and would want criminal laws against them, too by your "logic".
So it is your view that so long as no one is "violated" or "violating" when engaged in certain behavoir that it should be "legal"? With this construct, you then run into the problem of what constitutes a "violation"? For example, what of the wives of the customers of these ranches in Nevada? Are they being violated? What of the STD's that one may pass on ...[text shortened]... say why publically. It is then up to my fellow man as to whether they agree or not.
There are "victims" of our behavior, but that does not mean that every single act that causes some type of emotional harm to someone else is a proper subject of the criminal law. What limiting principle, if any, do you use to distinguish between an emotional harm worthy of throwing people in prison for inflicting on someone else and an emotional harm that should be dealt with in the normal course of human social life?
It is one thing to state publicly your views of what is moral or not; it is quite another thing to state publicly your views on what is moral or not and than insist those views be codified into the criminal law.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI am not debating Gazzaniga nor McMahan. I am debating with you. Can you give me physical evidence or some other rationale that causes you to state, babies "develop minds late in gestation" and "early fetuses...lack the capacity for consciousness"? If you cite one or both of the above authors...great!
No, I am giving you an article that will point you in the right direction (in particular, to the Gazzaniga book) if you want to research this on your own. Or, you could check out the very good book "The Ethics of Killing" by Jeff McMahan. Either these books will contain in their bibliographies references to the relevant developmental psychology literature.
Originally posted by zakkwylderI never mentioned God have I?
Further, as regards to violating one's self is concerned, why not just ban tattoos, piercings and fast food so that noone can violate themselves. According to the US gov. I have the right to [b]life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I take that to mean I can do what I please with my life as long as nobody else is harmed. If I have the right to lif ...[text shortened]... doing it I say. If people can't be happy with that, then maybe Hoover was onto something.[/b]
I think that if certain behavoirs have statistically bad outcomes then such behavoir should be discouraged whether it is gambling or prostituting yourself etc. and it is my view that making them illegal discourages such behavior. As I said, all high risk behavoirs will continue, however, the state need not endorse it by not making it illegal.
After having read your position I would assume that drugs should be legalized, prostitution should be legalized, I need not wear a safety belt when I drive, in fact, why have a speed limit? Am I correct?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSex gets increasingly riskier the more partners you have. As a society, we have the right attempt to curb high risk behaviors that end up effecing society at large such as prostitution or speeding in your car etc, etc. Of course simply driving a car is risky, however, it gets proportionally less safe the faster you go. Are you then in favor of doing away with speed limits as well?
[b]whodey: If only one person is dissuaded from engaging in such high risk behavior I say it is worth being made illegal.
By that "logic", it should be a capital crime for any adult to engage in sex; you never know what MAY be "high risk behavior".
Originally posted by no1marauderNow I never mentioned penalties now did I? I am simply saying that the state should take the position that it is "wrong" to act in a certain way.
I personally don't have any problem with saying something is immoral but not insisting it be made a criminal offense with prison sentences awaiting those who don't agree with my ideas of morality.[/b]