If you hire somebody to do an illegal act ...

[ronburgundy]

should not both you and the person you hired be held responsible for it? Why should the person you hire be the only one at risk of criminal prosecution?
Specifically: if abortion is illegal, why should only the doctor be charged but not the woman who hired him to do it? That does not make sense at all.

Note that this is the exact opposite of what the Swedish model of "war on sex work" prescribes - there only the client is held responsible and the provider gets off scott free.

Of course the similarity in both, despite diametrically opposite logical justification, is that logic is twisted so that women are not held responsible given that only women get abortions and that most sex workers are women.

That is not to say that abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't be, and neither should prostitution. But if either is illegal than surely all participants in the illegal activity should be subject to consequences, not only those whose prosecutions are politically correct.

Well, prosecuting anyone involved in an abortion (unless they lied about their credentials to perform the procedure) makes no sense based on any defensible principles, so only prosecuting the doctors can't make any less sense, just equally no sense. An argument can be made internally "coherent" just by starting with the needed premises, no matter how baseless or absurd those premises may be. Laws can (and should be) written and enforced in a manner that minimizes the harm caused by the illegal action while also causing a minimal amount of other harms via enforcement. Putting people in jail or fining them is generally harmful to everyone except those who profit or earn a living in law enforcement. It harms the kids of those people (the mothers often have other kids), and reducing harm to "kids" is the claimed rationale for any form of illegality of abortion. So, the goal should be to put as few people in jail as needed to produce the greatest reduction in the illegal action. That means going after the doctors rather than the mothers. Each abortion doctor is involved in thousands more abortions than any of the mothers. So, putting them in jail means a much higher benefit/harm ratio (if you accept the anti-abortionists starting premises of what is and is not a harm, which they do not count violation of a person's basic right over their body as a harm).

Of course, that isn't the actual reason why conservatives generally agree to target only the doctors. They would be more than happy to put all the mothers in prison for life and treat them as cruelly as they could get away with. They have no sincere regard for the harm this would cause those people's kids. "Punishment of evil" is their only real mindset when it comes to the law. However, that is a hard sell to the majority, including the middle grounders that they need to pass the laws they want. Sympathy for throwing a women in jail because she fears ruining her life and emotional trauma is higher than sympathy for sending doctors to jail who are not motivated by such desperation and fears, and although many are motivated by empathy for the women they can be painted as in it for the money.
In sum, Trump accidentally said what most GOP leaders and GOP voters actually feel should be the case, but they know that is a losing strategy so they pretend they are fine with only prosecuting doctors.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is kind of stupid to charge the abortion doctor and not the woman. If the abortion is considered to be a murder, that's like charging the hit man and not the person who paid to have somebody killed.

I mean, these people either think that there's a child being murdered or they don't. If they do, they need to treat it like any other murder. It's not cool to kill a kid if it's father is a rapist or if it's parents committed incest. It's not cool to arrest a hit man and consider the person who hired the hit man to be a victim who needs help.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is kind of stupid to charge the abortion doctor and not the woman. If the abortion is considered to be a murder, that's like charging the hit man and not the person who paid to have somebody killed.

I mean, these people either think that there's a child being murdered or they don't. If they do, they need to treat it like any other murder. It's not cool to kill a kid if it's father is a rapist or if it's parents committed incest. It's not cool to arrest a hit man and consider the person who hired the hit man to be a victim who needs help.

Its stupid of them to sincerely support only prosecuting the doctor, but not stupid of them to claim that they do.

And it wouldn't be stupid to support this if one was concerned about limiting the societal harms that imprisonments create. I realize that the people who care about those harms more than punishment at all costs tend to be pro-choice, because anti-abortionists are really motivated by authoritarian control.
But in principle one could care about those harms of criminal prosecutions AND think that abortions are wrong and should be reduced as much as possible. Balancing those values would favor going after the doctors for reasons I explain in my prior post.

 

[Underseer]

should not both you and the person you hired be held responsible for it? Why should the person you hire be the only one at risk of criminal prosecution?
Specifically: if abortion is illegal, why should only the doctor be charged but not the woman who hired him to do it? That does not make sense at all.

Note that this is the exact opposite of what the Swedish model of "war on sex work" prescribes - there only the client is held responsible and the provider gets off scott free.

Of course the similarity in both, despite diametrically opposite logical justification, is that logic is twisted so that women are not held responsible given that only women get abortions and that most sex workers are women.

That is not to say that abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't be, and neither should prostitution. But if either is illegal than surely all participants in the illegal activity should be subject to consequences, not only those whose prosecutions are politically correct.

Ah, count on you to turn this into a discussion about how "persecuted" men are.

Well, do you want more prostitution or less prostitution? If you want less prostitution, then the Swedish model works. If you just want to punish prostitutes, to crush people who are already desperate and miserable, then by all means, punish the prostitutes. It won't actually reduce prostitution, but it will really hurt people and make you feel very superior.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It wasn't "common sense" - it was vile and vicious... but it was logically consistent. It was also exactly what every anti-abortion conservative really thinks when forced to admit it. They just avoid talking about it because of exactly the push-back Trump got.

I think it's much more likely that most of them wouldn't see the logical inconsistency of their position if you beat them over the head with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are concerned that people are getting away with prostitution scot-free, you should report these prostitutes to the police, and turn yourself in while you're at it.

The issue is the social effects.

When prostitution is illegal you pretty much have no legal redress for misdeeds.

Making it illegal only for the john means the prostitute has legal recourse but the john does not--he can't do anything about being trick rolled or the like. If women being forced into it is an issue then make being forced into it a legal defense against a prostitution charge, don't make the crime one-sided.

 

[JonA]

Isn't it generally considered a crime to hire someone to commit a crime on your behalf?

Not if the person hiring is beneficiary of #femaleprivilege.

I'm trying to figure out how this all works - in people's minds.

Abortion is a stupid thing to criminalize.

But if it is criminalized, then shouldn't the perpetrator of the crime and his/her accomplices be held to answer before the law?

The position is perfectly logical. And the logical conclusion from anyone shouldn't be to exempt women undergoing abortions from prosecution under the law, but to realize that the law is ridiculous and not support it.

No one, on the Right or (especially) the Left should advocate for special treatment of some under the law.

And no one should be happy voting for a President (recall the job description) who is actually in favor of executing the laws willy-nilly as they please.

"I will prosecute people who commit crimes or hire others to do so" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a presidential candidate to promise. It is sadly telling of our times when such statements are met with the response Trump got.

I don't know what exactly to make of it... but I'd lean more toward it being related to authoritarianism than '#femaleprivilege'

 

[RavenSky]

I don't know what exactly to make of it... but I'd lean more toward it being related to authoritarianism than '#femaleprivilege'

Paternalistic authoritarianism, yes, I agree.

 

[JonA]

I don't know what exactly to make of it... but I'd lean more toward it being related to authoritarianism than '#femaleprivilege'

Paternalistic authoritarianism, yes, I agree.

Authoritarianism needs no qualifiers.

 

[RavenSky]

Paternalistic authoritarianism, yes, I agree.

Authoritarianism needs no qualifiers.

In this case it does

 

[SimpleDon]

I don't think that in either case do we have to hold ourselves to some standard of what is fair or what is logical in someone's eyes. It is enough if society has laws that accomplish some more desirable result. I think that in the case of prostitution society doesn't want to encourage it so that is there is little chance that it is will legalized any time soon. It is legal in Nevada outside of Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City, I think.

If only arresting johns reduced prostitution sufficiently then I say that it is good enough. Both men and women prostitute themselves but many more women than men and the customers are overwhelmingly male. This is the nature of the beast and there is no reason to assume that only arresting johns is a reflection of anything but that nature. Certainly it is not a plot to oppress men. The johns have an adult choice to make to not participate in the activity if they don't want to be arrested.

The same reasoning applies to abortions, if they are made illegal again. If arresting the abortion provider and not the women reduces the number of abortions sufficiently then more power to them.

However, a word of caution. There is no reason to believe that making abortions illegal will substantially reduce the number of abortions. If you want to make abortion illegal so that the country is right with your god then make them illegal. But I won't support you because there is no such a thing as a god. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, which is what I want to do, then the only proven way to do it is with the widespread use of contraception. Not by making abortion illegal.

The push to legalize abortions in the 1960's before Roe v. Wade was based on public health issues, not to further reduce the moral fiber of Americans or to tempt the natural disasters that a non-existent super being would rain down on us. Some thousands of women were dying every year from botched abortions by unskilled abortionists. Often the woman herself. Mostly poor women who didn't have the resources to travel out of the country and who didn't have the connections of regular doctor to get a so-called Catholic abortion, a quick D & C to restore the menstrual cycle.

The only reason that I can see to push to make abortion illegal would be to amp up a relatively stupid group of people to elect another group of stupid people into office to continue to vote for tax cuts for the already rich, with, of course, never intending to do something about abortion. Why ruin a good thing. Right?

 

[whichphilosophy]

should not both you and the person you hired be held responsible for it? Why should the person you hire be the only one at risk of criminal prosecution?
Specifically: if abortion is illegal, why should only the doctor be charged but not the woman who hired him to do it? That does not make sense at all.

Note that this is the exact opposite of what the Swedish model of "war on sex work" prescribes - there only the client is held responsible and the provider gets off scott free.

Of course the similarity in both, despite diametrically opposite logical justification, is that logic is twisted so that women are not held responsible given that only women get abortions and that most sex workers are women.

That is not to say that abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't be, and neither should prostitution. But if either is illegal than surely all participants in the illegal activity should be subject to consequences, not only those whose prosecutions are politically correct.

Banning abortions has never stopped them being carried out. It is highly doubtful that any US government would have enough support to reverse its current abortion laws.

 

[Derec]

Banning abortions has never stopped them being carried out. It is highly doubtful that any US government would have enough support to reverse its current abortion laws.

I am not arguing for banning abortions, just that both provider and client should be held responsible if abortion is banned.

As to whether abortion could be banned in the US, legalization of abortion is not a matter of any US law (except for ban of "partial birth" abortions and ban on funding of abortions) but rather a SCOTUS decision. A Republican in the White House could well appoint enough justices (especially if Garland doesn't go through this year) to overturn (or at least gut) Roe v. Wade in which case many states would go ahead and ban abortions either altogether or at least in most circumstances.

 

[Derec]

I think that in the case of prostitution society doesn't want to encourage it so that is there is little chance that it is will legalized any time soon. It is legal in Nevada outside of Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City, I think.

I think a SCOTUS challenge is the best bet. Under "right to privacy" and Lawrence v. Texas etc. there is no constitutional justification for laws banning prostitution.

If only arresting johns reduced prostitution sufficiently then I say that it is good enough.

Why? For one it is highly unjust to only arrest one party to a transaction. Second, there is no legitimate reason for state to tell consenting adults what to do with their bodies.

Both men and women prostitute themselves but many more women than men and the customers are overwhelmingly male.

Hence it is politically correct to only go after customers.

This is the nature of the beast and there is no reason to assume that only arresting johns is a reflection of anything but that nature. Certainly it is not a plot to oppress men. The johns have an adult choice to make to not participate in the activity if they don't want to be arrested.

How is the radical feminism inspired 'Swedish model' not a plot to oppress men? The only reason they only go after clients is that they are overwhelmingly male and sex workers overwhelmingly female.
And besides, the reason every society has had sex work ("oldest profession" and all that) is the mismatch between male and female sex drives. Professional sex services serve to correct that imbalance and thus are a worthwhile and necessary service in any society.

The same reasoning applies to abortions, if they are made illegal again. If arresting the abortion provider and not the women reduces the number of abortions sufficiently then more power to them.

And what if arresting women and not providers reduced abortions even more? Would you then be in favor of that solution? Or do you always favor discriminatory treatment if it benefits women?

However, a word of caution. There is no reason to believe that making abortions illegal will substantially reduce the number of abortions. If you want to make abortion illegal so that the country is right with your god then make them illegal. But I won't support you because there is no such a thing as a god. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, which is what I want to do, then the only proven way to do it is with the widespread use of contraception. Not by making abortion illegal.

We don't disagree there.

 

[Derec]

Ah, count on you to turn this into a discussion about how "persecuted" men are.

There are many areas where women are privileged in our society. Denying them and ridiculing those who point it out will not make these privileges disappear.

Well, do you want more prostitution or less prostitution?

It's not a question of more or less. The amount of sex work should be determined by the market, just like any other service. I mean, how many hair or nail salons should there be? I neither know nor care - that should be something determined dynamically by how many people desire those services (and how often), how much they are willing to pay for them, and how many people are willing to provide those services for those prices. Same should hold for sex work.

If you want less prostitution, then the Swedish model works.

There are actually some doubts as to how well it "works". But in any case, it reduces the freedom of the Swedish society quite a bit. Prohibition in the US reduced the amount of alcohol Americans consumed by quite a bit, but even if you favor people drinking less, do you think that outcome is worth the price in freedom the country paid?

If you just want to punish prostitutes, to crush people who are already desperate and miserable, then by all means, punish the prostitutes.

No, I do not want to do that. I think both sex workers and their clients should be free to pursue their profession/hobby freely, with only such regulation as is necessary, just like with any other commercial activity.
But if you insist in making it illegal (I do not see a good reason why you would want to) both should be held responsible, not only one for purely ideological reasons.

It won't actually reduce prostitution, but it will really hurt people and make you feel very superior.

Swedish model also hurts people, just not the kind of people you care about.

 

[Derec]

Because there aren't

You seriously don't think there are any female privileges?

Not when it comes to child support and divorce?
Not when it comes to co-called "affirmative action" in colleges and workplaces? Or scholarships and grants only females can apply to?
Not when it comes to expelling only the man when a drunk man and an equally drunk woman have consensual sex?
Not when it comes to receiving shorter sentences for crimes, especially things like spousal murder?
Not when it comes to not having to register for selective service?
Not when it comes to it being illegal to charge women more for health insurance but legal to charge men for car or life insurance?
Not even when it comes to dating where men are still expected to pay?

except it isn't. The fact that you act as if it is can be a huge turn-off to women

I am not sure if you really believe that or are just not willing to admit it because it goes against your ideological convictions.

No Derec. The very definition of "disparate" means "things so unlike that there is no basis for comparison".

My semantic bad. In that case, these two things are not really disparate as there is a point of comparison - punishing only one party in an illegal transaction.

I have very patiently explained to you twice why you cannot compare a hypothetical US abortion law and Swedish prostitution laws, and expect anything meaningful to come from it.

And I deny that you can't make comparisons just because they are in different countries.

Because you are trying to say something about the unfairness of a hypothetical US abortion law...

And it would be unfair to target only the doctors.

or the unfairness of a Swedish prostitution law.

And it is unfair to target only the customers.
Note the similarity - both are unfair laws that target only one party. They target the different functional party (customer vs. provider) but the similarity is that they are both engineered to protect solely or primarily women.

Either way, what one country does has no bearing on another country. If, however, you think it does, then I refute your claim that there are "special rights and privileges women have in our society" with: Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sudan, Guatemala, Mali, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia

And you would not be wrong about these countries. But you would be wrong that there is no female privilege in the US or Sweden. And you make my point why US and Sweden are very much comparable - the legal system and societies in general are much more alike as opposed to these other countries.

That the men are now also being arrested is your real complaint here, isn't it? Before, it was only your prostitute that risked arrest. Now you do too. From your article:

Actually everywhere in the US laws on the books criminalize both sides although enforcement was geared more toward providers. Still, many men have always been arrested for "solicitation" in the US. What the "progressive" sheriff Dart is doing is focus on customers because he thinks the providers are all innocent victims, which is ridiculous. This attitude robs women of their agency as it seeks to give them special protections. In effect, radical feminist infantalizes women while at the same time demonizing men.

So, contrary to your claim above, the female prostitutes are still being arrested; but now this jurisdiction has a couple of weeks per year where they target the customer and the pimps. Boo-hoo.

You are misrepresenting what Dart is doing.
- he wants to permanently change practices to focus on customers.
- the arrested customers are fines while sex workers are treated as victims and offered counseling rather than prosecuted.
And later in the article you can see that this is not the only jurisdiction that is doing this sexist policy

Versions of [Nordic Model] are slowly spreading across the U.S., but most jurisdictions continue to arrest prostitutes even as they turn their focus to sex buyers. New York established a special court system in 2013 to process sex workers and trafficking victims, with the goal of offering them counseling and social services, the same year Nassau County, NY caught more than 100 johns and posted their pictures online in a controversial sting called “Operation Flush the Johns.” Orange County, Calif. is cracking down on pimps and johns instead of prostitutes, reducing arrests of women as they increase arrests of men. Seattle has seen some early success in its “Buyer Beware” program, and in 2014, Seattle police arrested more sex buyers than prostitutes for the first time.

(And before you try to attached yet another strawman to me, I think prostitution should be legalized, legitimized and supervised. I don't think anyone other than pimps and traffickers should be arrested)

Depends how you define "pimps". If somebody runs an agency or a brothel than can have benefits for women compared to doing it alone. As long as they are not forced into the arrangement it should be up to them. It should not be fundamentally any different than a plumbing company having multiple plumbers working for them.

Then I guess you will need to wait and see the exact words are of the hypothetical anti-abortion law is, won't you? Historically, it has been the act of performing the abortion that was illegal - not the getting of one. Recent attempts in Utah, however, target women even more than the doctors performing the abortions.

If there is an anti-abortion law it should target both I think. Do you have specifics of the Utah law?
And we might see how it shakes out rather soon if a Republican wins the White House, given that getting two SCOTUS judges would likely lead to a anti-Roe majority on the court. Wild card being Trump. I don't think he is very pro-life and him fumbling the question is probably due to his lack of familiarity with the pro-life subculture. And his SCOTUS picks might reflect that.

No. I very specifically said "when forced to admit it." Can you read English?

In that case you will surely know many examples where they were "forced to admit it"?

That much I will agree with you on. The pro-lifers are usually a bunch of hypocrites, so I am really not very surprised, though.

Well at least we got one.

 

[RavenSky]

You seriously don't think there are any female privileges?

Not when it comes to child support and divorce?
Not when it comes to co-called "affirmative action" in colleges and workplaces? Or scholarships and grants only females can apply to?
Not when it comes to expelling only the man when a drunk man and an equally drunk woman have consensual sex?
Not when it comes to receiving shorter sentences for crimes, especially things like spousal murder?
Not when it comes to not having to register for selective service?
Not when it comes to it being illegal to charge women more for health insurance but legal to charge men for car or life insurance?
Not even when it comes to dating where men are still expected to pay?

No, Derec, I don't. For every situation where a female *might* have an advantage, there is another situation wherein a male will have the advantage. You forgot to add that only women get to use tampons. That's clearly unfair, right? Do you also get so bent out of shape because seniors get discounts at some businesses while ignoring that most seniors are on fixed incomes? This is what your constant complaining about this mythical "female privilege" is like.

 

[RavenSky]

No Derec. The very definition of "disparate" means "things so unlike that there is no basis for comparison".

My semantic bad. In that case, these two things are not really disparate as there is a point of comparison - punishing only one party in an illegal transaction.

I have very patiently explained to you twice why you cannot compare a hypothetical US abortion law and Swedish prostitution laws, and expect anything meaningful to come from it.

And I deny that you can't make comparisons just because they are in different countries...

Well, you can try, but then you risk trying to pair disparate issues like this and looking very foolish

 

[RavenSky]

That the men are now also being arrested is your real complaint here, isn't it? Before, it was only your prostitute that risked arrest. Now you do too. From your article:

Actually everywhere in the US laws on the books criminalize both sides although enforcement was geared more toward providers. Still, many men have always been arrested for "solicitation" in the US. What the "progressive" sheriff Dart is doing is focus on customers because he thinks the providers are all innocent victims, which is ridiculous...

For all of two weeks out of the year, Derec, per your own article. The other 50 weeks of the year it is business as usual - targeting the women prostitutes and not the male customers.

 

[Derec]

No, Derec, I don't. For every situation where a female *might* have an advantage, there is another situation wherein a male will have the advantage.

The situations where men have a legal advantage are few and far between and have largely been dismantled, while female privileges have been maintained. For example, women can hold jobs, and yet still many get alimony and get free meals and drinks while out on dates. Or women can serve in the military but only men can get drafted. Etc.

You forgot to add that only women get to use tampons.

A few days a month. I have to shave daily. What kind of argument is this?

Do you also get so bent out of shape because seniors get discounts at some businesses while ignoring that most seniors are on fixed incomes?

Seniors, by and large, also had a lifetime of being able to accumulate wealth. Discounts for young adults just starting independent life would make much more sense.
And then there are businesses that offer discounts for being female. Not only bars/clubs where such sexism is commonplace but also some quick lube places offer discounts for being female. I have yet to see a business that offers a discount for being male.

This is what your constant complaining about this mythical "female privilege" is like.

It's not mythical. It's very much present in many areas of life.

- - - Updated - - -

For all of two weeks out of the year, Derec, per your own article. The other 50 weeks of the year it is business as usual - targeting the women prostitutes and not the male customers.

The article also says he wants to make it a permanent program. And you have ignored other jurisdictions like NY and Seattle which likewise focus on punishing customers and treating providers as innocent victims.