Prostitution Laws

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by 0bserver92, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    Since people have the ability to prevent the spread of STDs themselves, it cannot be considered a crime. The government shouldn't be allowed to do anything it doesn't have to.
  2. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Which is why I stated that
    "For me, it is not so much a crime as..."
    So ensuring that massive amounts of their population do not fall prey to deadly diseases is not in their job description when it comes to defending their people? End up, there might not be people to lead!

    And what in the world do you think will fight the outbreak?
  3. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    If you were to say it is the governments job to prevent the spread of STDs through prostitution, wouldn't that mean you think they should stop it for traditional sex as well? It should, otherwise you are discriminating against the sex industry and sex workers. Of course that would also mean you would have to enforce against the spreadof STDs in all instances. Would that mean you would advocate creating a "sex police" to make sure people use contraception in recreational sex, and register people who have STDs and make sure they do not spread them, and watch them in everything they do, making sure they do not have sex (after all, abstinence is the only sure form of contraception)?
    Of course you don't. That would mean creating a police state. And as wrong as you are, I don't think you advocate police states. But it's perfectly justifiable by your logic.

    The only way the government could attempt to stop the spread of STDs is through education. Obviously criminalizing prostitution has not worked, it is still around. I hope you don't support draconian punishment for it. Prostitution must be made legal, and regulated to ensure safety.

    Which is exactly my position on similar "crimes" such as the use, cultivation, ad proliferation of drugs.
  4. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    A couple things:
    1) Degree of danger.
    While yes, legal sex does carry the risk of spreading STDs, the degree of spread is still lower. Commercializing any venture tends to make it occur much more often. The spread of STDs would be magnified if the prostitution was made legal.
    A carrier of an STD may suffer no syptoms themselves, yet still spread it.
    An average person only has so many people that they will have sex with. People don't normally just go around having sex with anybody and everybody. People tend to regulate themselves to a small group of individuals, if not just a single partner.
    On the other hand, an individual who has an STD and whose profession places them in a position that they will inevitably spread it may spread the STD to a much larger group of people.
    Making sex itself illegal would be ridiculous. Not only would people revolt against it, the vast majority of the human race would perish. The continuation of the species outweighs the risk of the STDs, but that does not mean that we should indulge ourselves in the practice to the point that we are blatently endangering ourselves.
    2) Making it legal does not ensure the slow of the spread of STDs. Quite the opposite in fact.
    The argument that something illegal is still around makes little sense. Illegality can usually only hope to reduce the frequency of an action, not eliminate it completely.
    Under your argument, as things like racial discrimination, murder, and rape are still around in spite of them being illegal, we ought to legalize them.
    Regulation does not ensure that the spread will not occur. Many individuals will avoid prostitution as it is on the basis that it is illegal and morally unethical [though the second is not something I will argue]. Regulation always has holes in it.
    3) Under you argument of a 'police state', anything and everything that is made illegal by the government constitutes a 'police state'. That is just folly reasoning.

    The main problem here is that you see everything in black and white and refuse to acknowledge the necessary middleground.
  5. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    If prostitution were legalized and regulated, then I disagree. Sex is already commercialized, it has been for thousands of years. Prostitution has been labeled "the world's oldest profession". As it stands, there is no legal method of prostitution. Anybody can become a prostitute and they can have sex with whomever they want. This prevents any possibilty of stopping the spread of STDs. The government's response is to make it(prostitution) a crime. This means that if any two people have sex where an exchange in money is involved, they can be arrested and charged as a criminal. This has not worked, as prostitutes are still around, and there is still the potential to spread STDs. If it were made legal and regulated, such as prostitution being regulated to brothels which are routinely inspected by the government to ensure it's workers are free of STDs and are using contraception, and inform their clients of the dangers of STDs, then I believe the legalization of prostitution would not significantly affect the spread of disease, while at the same time halt the prosecution of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    Again, regulation.

    My argument wasn't that by your logic sex itself should or could be made illegal, but that by your logic the government is obligated to protect people from STDs in all instances, which is illogical, and impossible without a police state. But I guess that is irrelevent as I don't believe that you think that.

    Of course, which is why regulation is a favorable alternative. It should be illegal for carriers of STDs to prostitute themselves, but not the average person.

    Those are all crimes. With victims. They should remain illegal. But prostitution by itself, when disease is not involved, is no crime, and ought not to be treated as one. And criminalizing something that isn't a crime will only make it worse.

    Neither will criminalizing it.

    Ths may be the case, but it is of justification of the current system, which I see as a crime itself. The government shouldn't make something a crime when there is no victim.

    What? If it is illegal, and there is no victim, then the government could be considered a police state. I consider things like laws against prostitution and drugs as creating a police state.

    I do? I don't thin so. As a matter of fact, as you have suggested nothing as an alternative to either criminalizaing or decriminalizing, (unless I've missed something or you posted something while I was typing this) I would say the same about you. What is the middle ground in your eyes?

    Your sole argument in support for the criminalization of prostitution relates to the spread of disease. You refuse to acknowledge or admit that the government should not prosecute people for crimes that have no victims, as it does not, and has not worked, and is an affront to liberty. I will admit that the knowing or intentional spread of disease should be made a crime, prostitution by itself should not, as there is no victim.
  6. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    We are talking about LEGAL commercialization.
    Under your argument, the black market is perfectly allowable as well.
    The problem with the idea of regulation is primarily twofold:
    1) The brothels may not always choose to work openly. Even if the practice itself found legal justification, people would still ethically shun it and drive it underground. That would make regulation difficult if not impossible.
    2) The STDs are not just from the people who are the prostitutes, they are also from the clients. How often do you expect people to get tested? A client comes in, does his thing, and the prostitute has an STD as a result. Then, before they do their next round of testing, the prostitute has sex with other clients, infecting them as well.
    I was torn between laughing and crying when I read this.
    That is like say that if I committed a murder, I would be 'otherwise law-abiding' if not for the laws that prohibit murder.
    I agree that there seems to be a miscommunication.
    I am saying that the government has a responsiblity to exert its influence to protect its citizens when it is necessary BUT ONLY TO THE POINT that it is either absolutely necessary or not as infringing on the individual's life as to be completely unreasonable. Basically, they have to be able to justify it to a reasonable individual.
    And no, I never said IN EVERY INSTANCE.
    That is to say, in the case of diseases, to require people to take precautions against spreading the disease [as in the case of school personnel and students] and quarantining people who are afflicted when there is a clear likelyhood of spreading the disease, even against their will.
    I am NOT necessarily saying that people with STDs have to be quarantined; it was just an example which, yes, is more applicable to something like a viral flu epidemic.
    In the case of STDs we observe that, in reality, when the laws were inacted the idea of slowing STD spread was likely more an afterthought to the moral/ethical opposition. However, in the current climate [and for the fact that I don't want to get bogged down in a morality debate], we observe that STDs are spreading at an alarming rate and that there is a high likelyhood that they will spread faster if such practices as prostitution are allowed.
    I assert that the government has a duty to protect its people from danger [danger being the stupidity of others] and therefore should be required to take steps to protect the public health. It is in the best interest of both the people and the government itself.
    Therefore, the government should take into consideration the threat that STDs pose to the public health and take measures to slow its spread, including eliminating un-necessary practices such as prostitution that hold more risk for the society than benefit.
    That can only be determined by looking at a concrete example.
    Such an example that includes all the varibles of the current situation in the US simply does not and has not existed.
    The only thing that is absolutely certain is that logic does not fail.
    STDs are spread by sexual activity and close contact. Prostitution primary focus is sexual activity and close contact. Therefore, the logic follows that STDs will spread faster if prostitution is legalized.

    I grow weary of this circular debate, so I shall close my side with this:
    As much as you reject it, I stand by my argument about STDs and prostitution.
    As I stated before, I would have no qualms if you presented proof that STDs would not spread faster due to prostitution.

    And yes, I am sure that you are wondering, so I will answer the question: there is an ethical side to my belief.
    I cannot in good conscience condone the legalization of a practice such as prostitution.
    However, in my defense, I will also say that I cannot in good conscience participate in the illegalization of a practice that is rooted purely in ethics. Not if I were a US voter, that is.
    I could not, in good conscience vote to legalize it, but niether would I oppose its legalization on moral grounds.
    I would likely abstain from the vote.
    In spite of that, I would at all times, reserve and apply as I see fit, my obligation to argue and make my points, if not myself, heard.

    I raised the angle of STDs because I am genuinely concerned that people ignore such facts in the ethical upheavals that such suggestions as legalizing prostitution cause but also because I was driven by an ethical revoltion of the idea.

    I would, as a final note, point out that regulation is by no means a magic bullet to slay any beast.
  7. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    I stand by my position, though I now see more clearly the arguments against the legalization of prostitution. I don't want to continue this debate, not at this ungodly hour in the morning, and probably not tomorrow(today?) either, so in conclusion, let us agree to disagree.
  8. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A scare-tactic involving the outbreak of STD epidemics is hardly the best argument you can use to counter the legalization of prostitution. Empiricism isn't on your side, nor is common sense. It's positively loony.
    JosipBrozTito and The Shaw like this.
  9. theteremaster Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    the deepest depths of the Australian netherworld
    don't legalize it. decriminalize it.
  10. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    That is all I ask.
  11. shlacka Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Message Count:
    221
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    USA
    @Imperial1917
    Ok, so I've either been really lazy or sort of busy for a discussion, so just read some stuff by John Taylor Gatto and tell me what you think.

Share This Page

Facebook: