Prostitution! How bad is it really? (Arizona, cigarette, facts, influence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already had a great day but thanks. You said letting individuals do as they please. If that means prostitution it follows that other individuals should be allowed to do what they please as well. That would be fair right? Otherwise, you would then become guilty of what you are complaining about.
Yep, people should be able to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on another's right.
Before I start and just to be clear, feelings are not protected whatsoever (because really, people could care less if your feelings got hurt).
Now what are another's rights? Well, they are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, with prostitution (and many other things illegal), you're rights (unalienables) are not infringed upon in the least. Your life is not affected by two people having paid for consensual adult sex, your liberty is not infringed upon by two people having paid for consensual adult sex, and your pursuit of happiness (ah, watch it, not feelings!) are not inhibited by two people having paid for consensual sex.
But when you (and other's like yourself) impose your beliefs onto other's (and get them passed into laws) it is now you that are infringing on the rights of another's! It is their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness! It is you that has no say in what they do (or don't do) because if the coin was flipped, it would be you in an outrage over someone infringing upon your rights.
Now I know what's coming: well what about murder? What about rape? What about x, y, and z?
All crimes (murder, rape, robbery, larceny, extortion) can be easily explained. If you murder someone, they did not agree to be murdered (infringed upon all three rights); if they did, it'd be assisted suicide.
Robbery: someone did not agree to be robbed (infringed upon their pursuit of happiness); if they did, then they'd just be giving the stuff away.
Rape: someone did not agree to have sex (infringed upon their pursuit of happiness and liberty); if they did agree, then it'd be regular plain old sex.
Shall I go on?
Everything is about consensuality; without the consensus, then we have nothing. And when some government official in washington tells me what I have to do because he/she believes it's the right thing for me to do (because they know better) then that is them imposing their beliefs onto me and that is not consensual, nor warranted, nor wanted.
When you take out the morality, and the belief, and all that jazz and push it aside, you are able to see things (issues such as these) alot more clearer.
Yep, people should be able to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on another's right.
Before I start and just to be clear, feelings are not protected whatsoever (because really, people could care less if your feelings got hurt).
Now what are another's rights? Well, they are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, with prostitution (and many other things illegal), you're rights (unalienables) are not infringed upon in the least. Your life is not affected by two people having paid for consensual adult sex, your liberty is not infringed upon by two people having paid for consensual adult sex, and your pursuit of happiness (ah, watch it, not feelings!) are not inhibited by two people having paid for consensual sex.
But when you (and other's like yourself) impose your beliefs onto other's (and get them passed into laws) it is now you that are infringing on the rights of another's! It is their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness! It is you that has no say in what they do (or don't do) because if the coin was flipped, it would be you in an outrage over someone infringing upon your rights.
Now I know what's coming: well what about murder? What about rape? What about x, y, and z?
All crimes (murder, rape, robbery, larceny, extortion) can be easily explained. If you murder someone, they did not agree to be murdered (infringed upon all three rights); if they did, it'd be assisted suicide.
Robbery: someone did not agree to be robbed (infringed upon their pursuit of happiness); if they did, then they'd just be giving the stuff away.
Rape: someone did not agree to have sex (infringed upon their pursuit of happiness and liberty); if they did agree, then it'd be regular plain old sex.
Shall I go on?
Everything is about consensuality; without the consensus, then we have nothing. And when some government official in washington tells me what I have to do because he/she believes it's the right thing for me to do (because they know better) then that is them imposing their beliefs onto me and that is not consensual, nor warranted, nor wanted.
When you take out the morality, and the belief, and all that jazz and push it aside, you are able to see things (issues such as these) alot more clearer.
Pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution #1. #2...feelings definitely do fall into pursuit of happiness so quit using that as one of your arguments for both those reasons.
There are rules we have to have for society that go beyond rape, murder, robbery, etc. for an endless number of reasons to protect everyone and to protect everyone's freedom.
On the prositution issue, as I've said before, I'd agree with legalizing it under strict conditions. At the same time, you cannot sit here and say that the government has no right to impose reasonable restrictions on what we can and can't do. That would result in anarchy and chaos that would make us ALL less free.
I one that supports legalizing Prostitution. I also support the regulation of Prostitution similar to how we do it in Nevada. There is little or no problems associated with the Brothels.
But the bigger question is - why is the Government involved with what consenting ADULTS do anyway?
For instance - why does the government (United States) prohibit two CONSENTING ADULTS, who happen to be related, from having sex? There are a number of countries that do not prosecute Incest (if the parties are adults and consenting)
For instance - why does the government (United States) prohibit two CONSENTING ADULTS, who happen to be related, from having sex? There are a number of countries that do not prosecute Incest (if the parties are adults and consenting)
Because of the issues that a possible child could have
Because of the issues that a possible child could have
Using that as criteria - then we should ban all pregnancies, shouldn't we? I mean, how many births resulting from intercourse between non related persons result in a "special need" child?
Pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution #1. #2...feelings definitely do fall into pursuit of happiness so quit using that as one of your arguments for both those reasons.
But they are our 'God given rights' are they not?
Let me rephrase myself: feelings are not as protected because they can not be measured. Someone can simply say that you speaking to them hurt their feelings; are we supposed to put you in jail for you simply speaking to them? On the other hand, you can measure physical damage (robbery, rape, murder). Someone can say that you looking at them caused them emotional damage and harm; are we supposed to put you in jail because of the emotional damage you inflicted upon another by just gazing over at them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
There are rules we have to have for society that go beyond rape, murder, robbery, etc. for an endless number of reasons to protect everyone and to protect everyone's freedom.
I realize this, but my question is to you - where do you draw the line?
And what we have no in our current situation offers no protection whatsoever; if anything, it breeds chaos. Drug pushers, sex trafficing, disease - how are we being protected from these things when it is a direct offset of having something illegal? How are we protected from drugs, from prostitutes when there are innocent people being gunned down, when there are prostitutes that can't even go to the police for fear of being arrested or killed? What is this protection that you speak of that we are sacrificing for our freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
On the prositution issue, as I've said before, I'd agree with legalizing it under strict conditions.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
At the same time, you cannot sit here and say that the government has no right to impose reasonable restrictions on what we can and can't do. That would result in anarchy and chaos that would make us ALL less free.
Never once did I say that. It's the act itself that needs to be legalized. I'm all for regulating the industry to make it more safe for everybody. What I'm against is the government officials telling me what I can and cannot do with my (or anyone else's body) based what they believe. It is science that tells us (which is objective - no bias) that if you wear a condom while having sex, the chance of pregnancy and contracting an STD goes down significantly. On the other hand, it is a government official who know nothing of science that tells us that prostitution is illegal because it's bad (which is just about as subjective as it gets). That's what get's me up in arms.
Prostitution comes down to two consenting adults having sex with the conditions of money being passed from one person to the other for the service.
What if these two people discussed the money factor but no money changed hands at that moment...only that a remittence would be in the mail for the recepient. With NO money changing hands ...would that be considered Prostitution? It all boils down to the MONEY factor.
Do believe that the Govmt would Leagalize any activity if enough money were involved.
Take for example the Govmt wanting to TAX 90% all the BONUS money paid by AIG etc.
Let me rephrase myself: feelings are not as protected because they can not be measured. Someone can simply say that you speaking to them hurt their feelings; are we supposed to put you in jail for you simply speaking to them? On the other hand, you can measure physical damage (robbery, rape, murder). Someone can say that you looking at them caused them emotional damage and harm; are we supposed to put you in jail because of the emotional damage you inflicted upon another by just gazing over at them?
The word "God" should not influence our laws in any way.
No we shouldn't put people in jail for speaking to someone harshly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09
I realize this, but my question is to you - where do you draw the line?
And what we have no in our current situation offers no protection whatsoever; if anything, it breeds chaos. Drug pushers, sex trafficing, disease - how are we being protected from these things when it is a direct offset of having something illegal? How are we protected from drugs, from prostitutes when there are innocent people being gunned down, when there are prostitutes that can't even go to the police for fear of being arrested or killed? What is this protection that you speak of that we are sacrificing for our freedom?
I understand this theory, but at the same time, it's not quite as simple. Legalizing all drugs, for example, would cause endless problems. I'd agree to legalize pot but not hard drugs. If they were legal, access would actually INCREASE and the cost would still be expensive. Due to the drugs being so expensive and addictive and since they make you so crazy, people will still rob and kill to get the money to buy the drugs.
Not to mention the fact that children who are unable to make informed decisions themselves could gain easier access to the drugs and become addicted to them for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09
Never once did I say that. It's the act itself that needs to be legalized. I'm all for regulating the industry to make it more safe for everybody. What I'm against is the government officials telling me what I can and cannot do with my (or anyone else's body) based what they believe. It is science that tells us (which is objective - no bias) that if you wear a condom while having sex, the chance of pregnancy and contracting an STD goes down significantly. On the other hand, it is a government official who know nothing of science that tells us that prostitution is illegal because it's bad (which is just about as subjective as it gets). That's what get's me up in arms.
Any regulation imposed by government restricts peoples' freedoms. So where do you draw the line?
Using that as criteria - then we should ban all pregnancies, shouldn't we? I mean, how many births resulting from intercourse between non related persons result in a "special need" child?
That's the thing - there really is not that much higher risk.
But, let's put that aside for the moment: What if both consenting parties agree not to have children - and one or both have a procedure that would prevent pregnancy.
Would you approve of incest then? Say a brother or sister? A father and daughter? A mother and son?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
