Shouldn't a Woman's Right to Choose apply to prostitution?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Should abortion be illegal because there are men who force women into it, threaten them into it, or unduly influence them to do it? Should abortion be illegal if we hear activists and social scientists say that having an abortion is harmful to the psyche of the mother-to-be?

Shouldn't a Woman's Right to Choose apply to prostitution? If not, why not?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, prostitutes should be allowed to get abortions. Unless they're sex slaves, of course, in which case the fetus is a work product which belongs to the pimp. He may wish to sell the baby and get some extra cash, so the woman's aborting it would be an act of theft.

 

[Derec]

Yes, prostitutes should be allowed to get abortions.

You are misconstruing the argument.
If the possibility of coercion to abort does not mean that abortion should be made illegal in general, then possibility of coercion into sex work should not mean that we should make sex work illegal in general.

I do not see how legally we can have decisions like Roe and Lawrence and sex work still be illegal. That is neither logically nor legally consistent.

 

[funinspace]

Yes, prostitutes should be allowed to get abortions.

You are misconstruing the argument.
If the possibility of coercion to abort does not mean that abortion should be made illegal in general, then possibility of coercion into sex work should not mean that we should make sex work illegal in general.

I do not see how legally we can have decisions like Roe and Lawrence and sex work still be illegal. That is neither logically nor legally consistent.

Do you realize that you are arguing points that were part of sarcasm?

 

[thebeave]

Good point. Women are always saying, "You can't tell me what to do with my body!" when it comes to outlawing abortion, so why wouldn't that statement apply to prostitution as well?

 

[Rayschism]

If women want government to pay for abortion, they have no right to keep the government out of their body.

I also support the government not paying for it.

If they want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.

 

[LordKiran]

If women want government to pay for abortion, they have no right to keep the government out of their body.

I also support the government not paying for it.

If they want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.

If they can't afford an abortion, they may attempt their own abortion, seriously injuring themselves, and then needing a trip to the hospital which further burdens our already struggling medical infrastructure. Or she keeps the baby and the social net has another mouth to feed when it would have been objectively cheaper to just let the woman have her abortion.

 

[Rayschism]

If women want government to pay for abortion, they have no right to keep the government out of their body.

I also support the government not paying for it.

If they want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.

If they can't afford an abortion, they may attempt their own abortion, seriously injuring themselves, and then needing a trip to the hospital which further burdens our already struggling medical infrastructure. Or she keeps the baby and the social net has another mouth to feed when it would have been objectively cheaper to just let the woman have her abortion.

Irrelevant.

It's taxpayer money. That also means it's my money paying for their abortion.

If they have the "right" to use my taxpayer money as they fit, why can't I use theirs to do something equally deplorable, like say support initiatives and legislation to ban homosexual marriages?

 

[Malintent]

If women want government to pay for abortion, they have no right to keep the government out of their body.

I also support the government not paying for it.

If they want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.

False dichotomy... the kind you can only find under a Russian bridge. Freedom is a one-way street. The right to acquire a service does not implicitly grant any rights back to the service provider, or the granting party.

It's like saying that because I have granted you the right to walk into my home, your legs now belong to me.

 

[Rayschism]

If women want government to pay for abortion, they have no right to keep the government out of their body.

I also support the government not paying for it.

If they want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.

False dichotomy... the kind you can only find under a Russian bridge. Freedom is a one-way street. The right to acquire a service does not implicitly grant any rights back to the service provider, or the granting party.

It's like saying that because I have granted you the right to walk into my home, your legs now belong to me.

So are you saying her body doesn't belong to her or the fetus doesn't belong to her like pro lifers like to argue?

Pro lifers love love love love to argue that the fetus doesn't belong to her until it is born then she and only she is responsible for it.

Which is an argument I can't wrap my head around.

 

[Malintent]

If they can't afford an abortion, they may attempt their own abortion, seriously injuring themselves, and then needing a trip to the hospital which further burdens our already struggling medical infrastructure. Or she keeps the baby and the social net has another mouth to feed when it would have been objectively cheaper to just let the woman have her abortion.

Irrelevant.

It's taxpayer money. That also means it's my money paying for their abortion.

If they have the "right" to use my taxpayer money as they fit, why can't I use theirs to do something equally deplorable, like say support initiatives and legislation to ban homosexual marriages?

It's your taxpayer money that is paying for Medicare coverage, not any specific procedure.
Do anti-vaccers have an equally valid point? Their tax money is being used to vaccinate children. CHILDREN!!!11!one!1

Do you have any children that are listed as your dependents? The government is paying for those children. They belong to the government. Perhaps someone will go collect on their investment sometime in the future... that about your line of thinking there? "Your" kids are more my kids because I pay more taxes than you.

All very stupid arguments that equate to the slippery slope you are pretending to stand on.

 

[Rayschism]

Irrelevant.

It's taxpayer money. That also means it's my money paying for their abortion.

If they have the "right" to use my taxpayer money as they fit, why can't I use theirs to do something equally deplorable, like say support initiatives and legislation to ban homosexual marriages?

It's your taxpayer money that is paying for Medicare coverage, not any specific procedure.
Do anti-vaccers have an equally valid point? Their tax money is being used to vaccinate children. CHILDREN!!!11!one!1

Do you have any children that are listed as your dependents? The government is paying for those children. They belong to the government. Perhaps someone will go collect on their investment sometime in the future... that about your line of thinking there? "Your" kids are more my kids because I pay more taxes than you.

All very stupid arguments that equate to the slippery slope you are pretending to stand on.

I view that it is not the Government's job to provide health care at all.

And no, they are not stupid arguments. Democracy ends when people find out they can vote away other people's money.

Why can I not have a say on how I spend my money? Why do you get to say and control how I spend my money? If you can say how I spend my money, what makes you so special that you can say how I spend mine and I can't have a say in how you spend yours?

If women have freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, why can we American citizens not have the same thing for our money?

 

[Malintent]

False dichotomy... the kind you can only find under a Russian bridge. Freedom is a one-way street. The right to acquire a service does not implicitly grant any rights back to the service provider, or the granting party.

It's like saying that because I have granted you the right to walk into my home, your legs now belong to me.

So are you saying her body doesn't belong to her or the fetus doesn't belong to her like pro lifers like to argue?

No. I am accusing you of that ridiculous implication. You claim that if the government pays, the government "owns".

Pro lifers love love love love to argue that the fetus doesn't belong to her until it is born then she and only she is responsible for it.

I can't make any sense of "pro-life" arguments, which is likely why the above seems like nonsense to me. "pro-life" is an intentional misnomer. They are anti-abortion, not pro-anything.

Which is an argument I can't wrap my head around.

Then you should not have made it. you said that if you want the government to subsidize any part of healthcare, then they have the right to own your body.

 

[Malintent]

It's your taxpayer money that is paying for Medicare coverage, not any specific procedure.
Do anti-vaccers have an equally valid point? Their tax money is being used to vaccinate children. CHILDREN!!!11!one!1

Do you have any children that are listed as your dependents? The government is paying for those children. They belong to the government. Perhaps someone will go collect on their investment sometime in the future... that about your line of thinking there? "Your" kids are more my kids because I pay more taxes than you.

All very stupid arguments that equate to the slippery slope you are pretending to stand on.

I view that it is not the Government's job to provide health care at all.

Fine. Many other people do to. I disagree. I think these are bad people that believe health is a commodity. I am of the opinion that clean air, clean water, clean food, the ability to own property, get a quality education, be protected from physical harm, and receive the best possible healthcare in the world is a BASIC human right.

And no, they are not stupid arguments. Democracy ends when people find out they can vote away other people's money.

you don't seem to know much about money or democracy, so I will just leave you with this: voting for how all American's federal tax money is spent has been done for over 200 years. It's one of many ways we have been able to limit government corruption... like how your mother Russia has been corrupted.

Why can I not have a say on how I spend my money?

all American citizens get a say on how they would like the money they have spent on taxes is paid. Basic stuff here. I don't have children, should I be allowed to opt-out of paying (a HUGE!!!!!!!!) amount of money to pay other people's snot-nosed pieces-of-shit fuckhead kids to go to school? why should I? answer: because we live in a society.

Why do you get to say and control how I spend my money? If you can say how I spend my money, what makes you so special that you can say how I spend mine and I can't have a say in how you spend yours?

First of all, it's not your money once you pay your taxes with it. It is the government's money. "your" money has been spent. on taxes. we all spend our money on the same rules. If you don't like what the government is spending THEIR money on, vote. My vote is just as powerful as yours (and vica versa)... again... VERY basic stuff here. did you not take a civics class is school, like ever?

If women have freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, why can we American citizens not have the same thing for our money?

You do! isn't that great? You get to decide exactly how you wan tto spend your money, I get to decide how I spend my money, and the government follows the law on how they spend their money (that they got from all of us for the purpose of running the government).

Your only valid argument is that you oppose healthcare as a government guaranteed right. and I disagree, and think that is beyond stupid, into the realm of evil, but you are entitled to your opinion. all the rest is just a misunderstanding of how a democratic society works.

 

[Rayschism]

So are you saying her body doesn't belong to her or the fetus doesn't belong to her like pro lifers like to argue?

No. I am accusing you of that ridiculous implication. You claim that if the government pays, the government "owns".

Pro lifers love love love love to argue that the fetus doesn't belong to her until it is born then she and only she is responsible for it.

I can't make any sense of "pro-life" arguments, which is likely why the above seems like nonsense to me. "pro-life" is an intentional misnomer. They are anti-abortion, not pro-anything.

Which is an argument I can't wrap my head around.

Then you should not have made it. you said that if you want the government to subsidize any part of healthcare, then they have the right to own your body.

How does it make any sense to you that women get to have this special benefit and government can't have any say in the abortion? I'm not saying giving them an override and owning, that is actually you misrepresenting my assertion.

Why are women so special?

How is it fair that women get to have this kind of financial support?

If men were able to give birth would they get this kind of financial support?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good point. Women are always saying, "You can't tell me what to do with my body!" when it comes to outlawing abortion, so why wouldn't that statement apply to prostitution as well?

I think a lot of people who support legalized abortion also tacitly support legalized prostitution, if you push them to answer about it, but we don't see these people pushing for it like we do with abortion, and the legal system treats in a complete opposite way. I would like to know why that is.

The woman's right to control her body seems to me should be a stronger argument for legalized prostitution than for legalized abortion, since killing isn't part of the former, and you're not weighing her right to control her body against any right of any other being/person/clump of cells.

 

[Rayschism]

Good point. Women are always saying, "You can't tell me what to do with my body!" when it comes to outlawing abortion, so why wouldn't that statement apply to prostitution as well?

I think a lot of people who support legalized abortion also tacitly support legalized prostitution, if you push them to answer about it, but we don't see these people pushing for it like we do with abortion, and the legal system treats in a complete opposite way. I would like to know why that is.

I personally believe the resistance to prostitution is because of the influence of Christian beliefs. It is primarily that Christianity leads the charge against prostitutes.

 

[laughing dog]

If women have freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, why can we American citizens not have the same thing for our money?

Citizens do - it's called voting.

 

[Derec]

I personally believe the resistance to prostitution is because of the influence of Christian beliefs. It is primarily that Christianity leads the charge against prostitutes.

Not just Christianity, also feminism. In US both work together, which is why both left and right are opposed to sex work. In Europe, Christianity has lost most of its influence on politics, and so opposition to sex work in places like Sweden, Iceland or France (remember, it was the left-wing Socialists who passed that law!) is due to feminism.

 

[Derec]

Do you realize that you are arguing points that were part of sarcasm?

You can never tell with Sawyer.