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

[Derec]

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.

 

[Frikki]

Let´s say that you go to a prostitute.

You are making a choice, she on the other hand is very likely to be a slave. So in effect only one of you have a choice in the matter. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated to decrease the amount of abuse but it would be perverse to punish someone for something that they have very little control over.

There are about 500k prostitutes in the states the Fed gov estimates that about 50k sex slaves are imported every year that leaves out those that are under age, most prostitutes start around 17 and those that are in other types of bondage abusive pimp relationships, etc.

Given the fact that you are very likely to be raping either a child or some sort of slave when you get your jollies, the law in Sweden, although I don´t agree with them make some sense.

So Derec, as a user of prostitutes how do you make sure that you are not raping a slave or a child? Do you card them?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should the person you hire be the only one at risk of criminal prosecution?

I can see prosecuting one or the other, if the point of the law is to attempt to deter abortions, but what would the point be in prosecuting both? *

Doctors that indulge in illegal behavior have a lot to lose. If we prosecute them, that'll drive the women to back alley providers and friends who watched the Youtube about the clothes hanger and the vacuum cleaner and have a tarp spread over the couch.

For me, the problem with sanctioning the mother is that if anyone has a miscarriage, that would have to be investigated as a possible abortion. I mean, she announced her pregnancy, got cards, went home for the weekend and came in on Monday 'claiming' that she'd had a miscarriage over the weekend. To the observer it's indistinguishable from her having found a friend of a friend who's a retired nurse who champions women's rights.
I doubt law enforcement would enjoy taking an already-upset woman to task, having her recount her statement of the event until she's convinced them it's a true story.

*I mean, the legal point. If we're out to punish everyone who doesn't agree with us that abortion is evil, then let's prosecute the doctor, the nurse, the patient, the boy what got her preggers, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic and the abstinence-only instructor of her high school who clearly failed to properly indoctrinate the children.

 

[Derec]

You are making a choice, she on the other hand is very likely to be a slave.

That is bullshit and pure left wing authoritarian propaganda. In reality most sex workers make a choice as well.

So in effect only one of you have a choice in the matter. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated to decrease the amount of abuse but it would be perverse to punish someone for something that they have very little control over.

The problem is that the Swedish model assumes no sex workers made a choice to do sex work and is just letting them off the hook without regard to what is actually going on. For ideological reasons they are incapable of even conceiving a woman choosing to engage in sex work.

There are about 500k prostitutes in the states the Fed gov estimates that about 50k sex slaves are imported every year that leaves out those that are under age, most prostitutes start around 17 and those that are in other types of bondage abusive pimp relationships, etc.

The problem with these numbers is that they conflate prostitution in general with trafficking.

Given the fact that you are very likely to be raping either a child or some sort of slave when you get your jollies,

Nope.

the law in Sweden, although I don´t agree with them make some sense.

While it makes sense not to charge victims of sex slavery, assuming all sex workers are sex slaves does not make any sense at all.
Of course the law in even more illiberal Iceland is even more draconian.

So Derec, as a user of prostitutes how do you make sure that you are not raping a slave or a child? Do you card them?

I have a few regulars I tend to see so I am pretty confident they are neither. Of course if one unwittingly has sex with a partner who was coerced by a third party one can't really speak of "rape" in either a moral nor legal sense.

 

[Derec]

I can see prosecuting one or the other, if the point of the law is to attempt to deter abortions, but what would the point be in prosecuting both?

If you can see prosecuting either party that means both are responsible so they should both be prosecuted.
I do not see your logic there. Why should only one party be prosecuted? If a police busts a drug deal they arrest and prosecute both sellers and buyers. They don't go "I can see prosecuting one or the other, but what would be the point in prosecuting both?"

Doctors that indulge in illegal behavior have a lot to lose.

So do the women.

If we prosecute them, that'll drive the women to back alley providers and friends who watched the Youtube about the clothes hanger and the vacuum cleaner and have a tarp spread over the couch.

That would surely be a reason not to prosecute the doctors.

For me, the problem with sanctioning the mother is that if anyone has a miscarriage, that would have to be investigated as a possible abortion. I mean, she announced her pregnancy, got cards, went home for the weekend and came in on Monday 'claiming' that she'd had a miscarriage over the weekend. To the observer it's indistinguishable from her having found a friend of a friend who's a retired nurse who champions women's rights.

But if a doctor who performed the illegal abortion is identified and is being charged, why not prosecute the woman who hired him too? Now are are not talking of miscarriages and vague suspicions but of specific evidence of specific acts. I.e. if they charge the "retired nurse who champions women's rights" why not charge the woman who hired her to do it as well? Makes no sense to me from a logical standpoint. The abstinence instructor is even more of a stretch. They don't have control of what their students are doing, and besides, it is not getting pregnant that would be against the law but ending said pregnancy.

I doubt law enforcement would enjoy taking an already-upset woman to task, having her recount her statement of the event until she's convinced them it's a true story.

Be that as it may but laws should not concern themselves with what LEOs would enjoy doing.

*I mean, the legal point. If we're out to punish everyone who doesn't agree with us that abortion is evil, then let's prosecute the doctor, the nurse, the patient, the boy what got her preggers, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic and the abstinence-only instructor of her high school who clearly failed to properly indoctrinate the children.

We are talking people directly involved in the act. So yes, doctor and/or nurse, the person who hired them (usually the mother). But why the "boy what[sic] got her preggers" unless he was involved in her getting an abortion? Getting somebody pregnant would not be illegal even if abortion is.

 

[bigfield]

I have a few regulars I tend to see so I am pretty confident they are neither. Of course if one unwittingly has sex with a partner who was coerced by a third party one can't really speak of "rape" in either a moral nor legal sense.

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.

I have a few regulars I tend to see so I am pretty confident they are neither. Of course if one unwittingly has sex with a partner who was coerced by a third party one can't really speak of "rape" in either a moral nor legal sense.

How confident is 'pretty confident'?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Leave it to you to turn two very separate issues and turn it into an anti-women rant

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing a hypothetical from US politics ("if abortion were illegal") to "the Swedish model" of prostitution, knowing full well that the US model of prostitution makes it illegal and arrests both the prostitute and the customer... and does so without differentiating between the genders of either the customer or the prostitute.

As to the hypothetical of arresting the woman who has an abortion, please find me anyone in the US (or in Sweden, for that matter) who thinks that "if abortion were illegal" that the doctor *should* be arrested and the woman *should not* be. You may find some conservatives who will take extreme measures to avoid answering the question, but in the end they all think exactly what Donald Trump said out loud on national television - “There has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. On the flip-side, everyone else thinks neither person should be prosecuted.

 

[Derec]

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.

I was specifically talking about the sexist Swedish model.

How confident is 'pretty confident'?

To my best knowledge.

 

[bigfield]

I was specifically talking about the sexist Swedish model.

You said:

If you hire somebody to do an illegal act...should not both you and the person you hired be held responsible for it?

Yet your own actions show that you do not want to be held responsible for your own illegal acts.

How confident is 'pretty confident'?

To my best knowledge.

That's not inspiring.

 

[Derec]

Leave it to you to turn two very separate issues and turn it into an anti-women rant

Well it is interesting how unequal treatment of parties involved in a criminal transaction is such that in both cases women are protected from prosecution even though diametrically opposite reasoning is used.
And it's not an "anti woman rant"; if anything it's a rant against special rights and privileges for women.

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing a hypothetical from US politics ("if abortion were illegal") to "the Swedish model" of prostitution, knowing full well that the US model of prostitution makes it illegal and arrests both the prostitute and the customer... and does so without differentiating between the genders of either the customer or the prostitute.

Yes, which is why I specified the Swedish model and never said that it was the US model, although unfortunately it is starting to be used here as well, especially by Democratic DAs. I brought it up as an example of another case where only one party (provider in this case, not the client) is given immunity.

As to the hypothetical of arresting the woman who has an abortion, please find me anyone in the US (or in Sweden, for that matter) who thinks that "if abortion were illegal" that the doctor *should* be arrested and the woman *should not* be. You may find some conservatives who will take extreme measures to avoid answering the question, but in the end they all think exactly what Donald Trump said out loud on national television - “There has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. On the flip-side, everyone else thinks neither person should be prosecuted.

That's just it - Trump was soundly criticized for this bit of common sense and had to backpedal. It seems both pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree women should not be prosecuted even if abortion is illegal.
For example see this:
When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here’s Why

First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second “victim” of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second “victim.” Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.

This infantilization of women and treating them as "victims" of their own choices is very similar to the "logic" behind the Swedish/Icelandic model of war on sex work as well.

 

[RavenSky]

Well it is interesting how unequal treatment of parties involved in a criminal transaction is such that in both cases women are protected from prosecution even though diametrically opposite reasoning is used.
And it's not an "anti woman rant"; if anything it's a rant against special rights and privileges for women.

No. It is another one of your strawmen created so you can rant about non-existent "special rights and privileges for women."

And you still don't understand why women find this objectionable?

Let's start with the fact that you are comparing a hypothetical from US politics ("if abortion were illegal") to "the Swedish model" of prostitution, knowing full well that the US model of prostitution makes it illegal and arrests both the prostitute and the customer... and does so without differentiating between the genders of either the customer or the prostitute.

Yes, which is why I specified the Swedish model. I brought it up as an example of another case where only one party (provider in this case, not the client) is given immunity.

You are attempting to compare two disparate situations. As I pointed out to you already, if you wanted to support your claim, you would need to show that the US system does not arrest the female prostitutes, but only arrests the male customers.

Conversely, you could show that in Sweden, male doctors performing abortions are arrested but female abortion doctors and female patients are not. Then we could discuss Sweden instead of the US

As to the hypothetical of arresting the woman who has an abortion, please find me anyone in the US (or in Sweden, for that matter) who thinks that "if abortion were illegal" that the doctor *should* be arrested and the woman *should not* be. You may find some conservatives who will take extreme measures to avoid answering the question, but in the end they all think exactly what Donald Trump said out loud on national television - “There has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. On the flip-side, everyone else thinks neither person should be prosecuted.

That's just it - Trump was soundly criticized for this bit of common sense and had to backpedal. It seems both pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree women should not be prosecuted even if abortion is illegal.

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.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

Or if you have illegals working for you shouldn't you be held responsible too? And if you consider a zygote to be a human being with full human rights why do you consider abortion to be something less than premeditated capital murder? Or if bankers believe that the government should stay out of their business why do they think that the government should bail out their bank? Or why do the solutions to racism have to be race based? Or why do you have to be polite to people whom you don't like?

Welcome to the real world of parsing and compromising to run a real society containing many different kinds of people who largely behave based on emotion rather than logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you can see prosecuting either party that means both are responsible so they should both be prosecuted.

No, I don't think that follows.
If they write the law to prohibit performing an abortion, then only the provider is breaking the law.
If I ask the taxi driver to get me to the airport in a hurry, we don't both get speeding tickets. I do not get charged with conspiracy to commit a traffic violation.

I do not see your logic there. Why should only one party be prosecuted? If a police busts a drug deal they arrest and prosecute both sellers and buyers. They don't go "I can see prosecuting one or the other, but what would be the point in prosecuting both?"

Maybe because the law prohibits the use, possession and sale of illicit drugs.
If they write the law to criminalize giving AND getting abortions, then both participants will be prosecuted.

Doctors that indulge in illegal behavior have a lot to lose.

So do the women.

What? Their license to have sex?

If we prosecute them, that'll drive the women to back alley providers and friends who watched the Youtube about the clothes hanger and the vacuum cleaner and have a tarp spread over the couch.

That would surely be a reason not to prosecute the doctors.

Wow, you're just full up hating on women, aren't you?

But if a doctor who performed the illegal abortion is identified and is being charged, why not prosecute the woman who hired him too?

Your answer to 'why prosecute them' seems to be 'why not prosecute them, too?'

Not terribly useful.

Now are are not talking of miscarriages and vague suspicions but of specific evidence of specific acts.

But it's going to be the same law. If it's illegal to get an abortion, then any possible abortion must be investigated.

Makes no sense to me from a logical standpoint.

I doubt that 'logic' is your issue, here.

Be that as it may but laws should not concern themselves with what LEOs would enjoy doing.

Sure they should. Can we effectively prosecute laws that make it illegal to receive an abortion? People are always complaining that they got arrested for X when the cops should be out prosecuting Y. Is it a benefit to society to burden law enforcement with investigating every incomplete pregnancy to possibly prosecute the woman?

*I mean, the legal point. If we're out to punish everyone who doesn't agree with us that abortion is evil, then let's prosecute the doctor, the nurse, the patient, the boy what got her preggers, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic and the abstinence-only instructor of her high school who clearly failed to properly indoctrinate the children.

We are talking people directly involved in the act.

The footnote is about what I suspect to be the real motivation behind punishing the woman, too, which is straightforward punishment for the sake of not honoring the religious outlook, not any actual benefit to society. I'm sure the judgmental thumpers pushing this sort of legislation would be happiest if they could make any fun illegal, esp. fun they consider dirty.

 

[Derec]

No. It is another one of your strawmen created so you can rant about non-existent "special rights and privileges for women."

And you and some women on here vehemently refuse to acknowledge that there are any special rights and privileges women have in our society.

And you still don't understand why women find this objectionable?

Well it is the truth.

You are attempting to compare two disparate situations.

Yes, that's what comparisons usually do - finding similarities between different things.

As I pointed out to you already, if you wanted to support your claim, you would need to show that the US system does not arrest the female prostitutes, but only arrests the male customers.

I do not see why the two points of comparison have to be in the same country.
But even in the US, some jurisdictions (especially more "progressive" ones) have embraced the Swedish model, at least partially.
It is moving in the exact the wrong direction. Instead of legalizing and regulating, sex buyers are targeted while sex workers are not being held responsible for their choices.

Conversely, you could show that in Sweden, male doctors performing abortions are arrested but female abortion doctors and female patients are not. Then we could discuss Sweden instead of the US

Again I do not see why policies under comparison have to be from the same country.

It wasn't "common sense" - it was vile and vicious... but it was logically consistent.

The logical consistency is what is "common sense" about it. If you make something illegal both parties should be prosecuted.

It was also exactly what every anti-abortion conservative really thinks when forced to admit it.

Are you a mind reader?

They just avoid talking about it because of exactly the push-back Trump got.

He seems to have gotten the biggest push-back from the pro-life crowd. They seem to have the same low opinion about women having responsibility for their choices as the proponents of the Swedish model have when it comes to sex work.

 

[Bomb#20]

Let´s say that you go to a prostitute.

You are making a choice, she on the other hand is very likely to be a slave. So in effect only one of you have a choice in the matter. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated to decrease the amount of abuse but it would be perverse to punish someone for something that they have very little control over.

This makes no sense. Either she's a slave or she isn't. If she's a willing participant then your justification for unequal prosecution goes away. If she's a slave then having buying illegal but selling legal means the police arrest the john and walk away, leaving her at the mercy of her kidnapper, who will just force her to have sex with another client and will probably beat her on suspicion of having gotten her last john arrested. So if legislators seriously think most prostitutes are slaves then it would make more sense for them to outlaw selling as well as buying. That way the police will have the authority to arrest the slave, thereby getting her the hell out of her pimp's clutches. Then they can ask her if she was forced into it, and she'll say she was, and then they can get her into a drug treatment facility if she needs that, or else release her some place far away from the guy who enslaved her.

 

[RavenSky]

For example see this:
When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here’s Why

First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second “victim” of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second “victim.” Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.

This infantilization of women and treating them as "victims" of their own choices is very similar to the "logic" behind the Swedish/Icelandic model of war on sex work as well.

So you've finally discovered that pre-1970's were paternalistic against women? Congratulations.

But let's examine what your source says in more depth:

As the Oregon Supreme Court held as late as 1968, the abortionist commits the act, and the woman aborted is the object of that act. “A reading of the statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her. She is the object of the acts prohibited rather than the actor.”

As the appeals court in the District of Columbia wrote in 1901, “y its terms, [D.C. Code Ann. § 809 (1901)] applies to the person or persons committing the act which produces the miscarriage, and not to the person upon whom it is committed, notwithstanding it may be done with her knowledge and consent. Not being liable to indictment thereunder, she is not an accomplice in the legal sense.”

Whether I agree with it or not, that is a sound legal argument, and does not in any way "infantilize" women. By contrast, when you go see your favorite prostitute, you are both engaged in an illegal act.

I will also note that your source uses terms such as "pro-abortion historian" shows a very strong and dishonest bias, which calls into question the accuracy of the article.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.

But even if it is accurate that very few women were actually prosecuted for abortion prior to Roe v Wade, it does not follow that past is prologue. Since Roe v Wade, conservatives have started prosecuting women for having miscarriages

According to local CNN affiliate WSBT, Patel, a 33-year-old from a family of Indian immigrants in South Bend, Ind., told a police detective she had been aware of her pregnancy for three weeks when she left work early because of cramping back in July 2013. Eventually the pain sent her into the bathroom, where “it all came out,” she said. Among the blood, she found her fetus, which looked lifeless. She tried to open the baby’s mouth and resuscitate it, but was unsuccessful.

When asked why she didn’t call 911, Patel said she was in shock at the amount of blood she was losing. Because she “didn’t know what else to do,” she put the body in a plastic bag and took it to a dumpster, then showed up at the emergency room of St. Joseph Regional Medical Center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ailed-for-feticide-its-never-happened-before/

Here are their six most horrifying examples, with lots more to come.

1. A critically ill, 27-year-old Washington D.C. woman was 26 weeks pregnant when a judge ordered her to have a Cesarean section. He did so with the understanding that the procedure would very likely kill her. It did. The baby died as well.

2. A pregnant woman in Iowa fell down a flight of stairs and went to the hospital. The hospital reported her to the police who arrested her for “attempted fetal homicide.”

3. A Utah woman gave birth to twins, one of which was stillborn. Her doctors blamed the death on her decision to delay a C-section. She was arrested for fetal homicide.

4. A Louisiana woman checked in to a hospital due to vaginal bleeding. She was locked up for a year on charges of “second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.”

5. A Florida woman “was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a Cesarean.” She still lost the baby, and her two small children at home were left without her while she was held. A state court ruled that this detention was wrong, although it would have been fine if she was further along in her pregnancy.

6. Another Florida woman who went into labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, driven to the hospital and forced to have a Cesarean against her will. She filed suit, and the court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

7. A severely depressed, pregnant 22-year-old woman in South Carolina tried to commit suicide. She was jailed for child abuse.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were

Utah is poised to become the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:

expands the definition of illegal abortion to include some miscarriages
removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution
But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this "Criminal Miscarriage" law is unique. It not only punishes individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/bl...nes-some-miscarriages-as-qcriminal-homicideq-

Alabama has prosecuted at least 40 cases brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law, which was introduced in 2006. The law, purportedly designed to protect children from fumes inhaled from methamphetamine being cooked by their parents, is now being used to criminalize pregnant women who miscarry.
Alabama mother Amanda Kimbrough delivered her baby prematurely in April 2008, and the baby died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough learned during her pregnancy that her child possibly suffered from Down’s syndrome, but she chose to carry the child to term.
Six months after the birth, she was arrested and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs while pregnant. She denies the claim.
“That shocked me, it really did,” Kimbrough told the Guardian. “I had lost a child, that was enough.” She is now awaiting an appeal ruling in the Alabama courts. If she loses her appeal, she will begin a 10-year prison sentence. “It’s just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,” she said. “They say I’m a criminal, how do I answer that? I’m a good mother.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html

 

[Frikki]

I was specifically talking about the sexist Swedish model.

How confident is 'pretty confident'?

To my best knowledge.

So you are 80% sure you are not raping a child or a slave?

- - - Updated - - -

Let´s say that you go to a prostitute.

You are making a choice, she on the other hand is very likely to be a slave. So in effect only one of you have a choice in the matter. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated to decrease the amount of abuse but it would be perverse to punish someone for something that they have very little control over.

This makes no sense. Either she's a slave or she isn't. If she's a willing participant then your justification for unequal prosecution goes away. If she's a slave then having buying illegal but selling legal means the police arrest the john and walk away, leaving her at the mercy of her kidnapper, who will just force her to have sex with another client and will probably beat her on suspicion of having gotten her last john arrested. So if legislators seriously think most prostitutes are slaves then it would make more sense for them to outlaw selling as well as buying. That way the police will have the authority to arrest the slave, thereby getting her the hell out of her pimp's clutches. Then they can ask her if she was forced into it, and she'll say she was, and then they can get her into a drug treatment facility if she needs that, or else release her some place far away from the guy who enslaved her.

I did not say I agreed with the law but this is one of the rationales for laws like this. Also that prostitutes feel safer going to the police.

 

[RavenSky]

And you and some women on here vehemently refuse to acknowledge that there are any special rights and privileges women have in our society.

Because there aren't

And you still don't understand why women find this objectionable?

Well it is the truth.

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

You are attempting to compare two disparate situations.

Yes, that's what comparisons usually do - finding similarities between different things.

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

As I pointed out to you already, if you wanted to support your claim, you would need to show that the US system does not arrest the female prostitutes, but only arrests the male customers.

I do not see why the two points of comparison have to be in the same country.

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

or the unfairness of a Swedish prostitution law. 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

But even in the US, some jurisdictions (especially more "progressive" ones) have embraced the Swedish model, at least partially.
It is moving in the exact the wrong direction. Instead of legalizing and regulating, sex buyers are targeted while sex workers are not being held responsible for their choices.

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:

Until recently, most jurisdictions in the U.S. have focused their energy on arresting prostituted women— according to records from the Department of Justice, more than 43,000 women were arrested for prostitution-related offenses in 2010, compared to just over 19,000 men (this number includes johns, pimps, and male sex workers). But since 2011, Sheriff Dart’s office has organized the “National Day of Johns Arrests,” now re-named “National Johns Suppression Initiative,” a series of stings coordinated with other jurisdictions over the course of several weeks, aimed at encouraging a permanent change in police practices.

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.

(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)

It wasn't "common sense" - it was vile and vicious... but it was logically consistent.

The logical consistency is what is "common sense" about it. If you make something illegal both parties should be prosecuted.

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.

It was also exactly what every anti-abortion conservative really thinks when forced to admit it.

Are you a mind reader?

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

They just avoid talking about it because of exactly the push-back Trump got.

He seems to have gotten the biggest push-back from the pro-life crowd.

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.

 

[JonA]

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

 

[Derec]

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.