Tuesday, March 08, 2005

what's wrong with legalizing prostitution?

I was asked if my position on legalized prostitution was thought out, or is it merely "knee-jerk conservatism?"

'Knee-jerk conservatism' is merely the proper and automatic recognition of right and wrong. All else is sophistry.


As for prostitution:

Prostitution is wrong because it spreads disease, both physical and moral.

There are many who, including those who were sex-trade workers, see prostitution as slavery.



Legitimizing the sex trade will also have the undesirable effect of making it more acceptable. Moral decay is a label that liberals usually equate with 'meaningless religious argument.' Then they stop paying attention. If you are honestly liberal in thought, you will consider this viewpoint even if it differs from yours. Sex is a part of the procreative act, designed for the perpetuation of our species. It leads to the creation of children who are best raised in a stable family environment of a Father and Mother. The most stable parenting arrangement in history is a Husband and Wife in a covenanted married relationship. It is morally repugnant for a society to encourage the destabilization of the family unit, in this case by making illicit sex licit.

Science has proved that there is no such thing as safe sex. Condoms were designed to prevent pregnancy. I remember reading reports of tests that showed the best Condoms have consistent failure rates as high as 20%. When you factor in all the various activities that can be included under the heading of 'intercourse' (Billy Clinton's bizarre definition excepted) the failure rates can approach 100%.

When you consider the incubation periods of some STDs you can see there is no such thing as a 'safe' sex-trade worker.

There is also the medical threat to the innocent. As a former reporter I've spoken with sex-trade workers, and they'll be the first to tell you a large percentage of their 'johns' are married men. The health of the wives of these married men is jeopardized by their mate's infidelity.

Government Regulation won't prevent STDs from spreading through the sex-trade either. Jurisdictions where prostitution is legal have umpteen regulations against unprotected sex. Yet I've read more than a few reports that unprotected sex is available for an extra fee in supposedly 'regulated' establishments.

It is repugnant for a pimp to benefit from the perverse thing that is the sex trade. Legalizing and taxing it merely makes the Government a pimp as well. If it is legalized, Every Government member who votes FOR this should be made to share a pooled blood transfusion from sex-trade workers.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your definition of 'knee-jerk conservatism' is by no means all encompassing, but a nice attempt at a blanket statement.

Your link doesn't really cover the situation in, say, Nevada, unless you think that the women there are being held against their will. More of a strawman when you think about it. If I were trying to convince someone not to vote conservative and as proof included a link to the American Nazi party, it'd hardly be applicable.

I consider all viewpoints which is why I spend time reading blogs where the opinion is different from mine. So do I take it from the moral decay angle that you're against pre-marital sex? Are you against the use of birth control? If sex is 'part' of the procreative act then how much of it is permitted simply for the pleasure that is derived from it, if any? This isn't facetious. I know if you're a strict Catholic then you'd only be having sex for the purpose of procreation.

So is going to a brothel and paying for sex the moral equivalent of picking up a woman in a bar, buying her drinks and having consensual sex later?

andrew said...

Thank you. That definition works well enough in every day life for me.

The link to shared hope was an example, and not the argument. That making love is as intimate and personal a human activity as can be, is self evident. Being forced by your circumstances to the point where your only option for survival is to sell the use of your body, to be used like a combination towel and a Hustler magazine fits the slavery moniker pretty well, I think.

Look hard enough, and I'm sure you can show me a hooker who claims she likes her 'job', and I'll show you a victim who's life story includes a good example of man's inhumanity to man. Surely normal school-girls in Nevada or Germany don't aspire to be the main attraction in a whore house.

What's a strict Catholic? An anti-christian liberal label.
There sure as hell aren't any catholics I know of who use it. By definition, Catholics hold to the teachings of the church. For example, this includes the bible and the ten commandments. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Honor your Parents. Keep the Sabbath Day. Perjury is bad. So is Adultery and fornication. Look up Matthew 15, verses 19-20.

Andrew said...

Had to break off the reply last night, I shouldn't attempt to reply to your post when I'm nodding off and fighting sleep (grin).

Your sex, birth control and pleasure question? I believe in abstinence until marriage, am against artifical birth control,(I think it reduces the sex act to selfish masturbation, and many forms of birth control are abortifacents) and no, the Catholic church does not teach that sex is for procreation only.

Have all the sex you and your spouse want... together.
To quote of section 2362 of the Catholic Catechism, "...Sexuality is a source of Joy and Pleasure."
There's more though. A husband and wife in conjugal union echoes both God's own act of creation and his unceasing relationship (covenant) with us. You can't separate the two without harmful consequences to the family.

And finally, your last question: yes. After the paragraph above, how can the answer be otherwise?

Anonymous said...

A strict Catholic is an anti-Christian label? Only if you have a persecution complex. I'd say a strict Catholic is someone who adheres 'strictly' to the tenets of the church, i.e.: a Catholic who practices birth control is acting in conflict with church teaching and could not therefore be considered a 'strict' Catholic. I'm not sure how you turn that into an anti-Christian liberal label, but thank you, that definition works well enough in every day life for me. If you don't know any Catholics who use that label you haven't been reading many blogs. There are any number who describe themselves or their writings as strictly Catholic and I doubt they're using the term as a pejorative in describing themselves.

Insofar as your views on birth control and sex, I can respect your opinion but do not agree with it. I don't think it is the purview of society or one group to dictate issues such as sex or birth control. What goes on between consenting adults should be left between those adults and their own consciences. If their behavior is subject to their religious beliefs then more power to them. If they don't believe that pre-martial sex is a sin they should be allowed to act accordingly with others who see it the same way. In the same way that the prohibition of alcohol was doomed to failure, the criminalization of prostitution hasn't stopped it, has forced it 'underground' where the spread of disease that you mention is exacerbated, along with the risk of violence since women are left on their own.

Making prostitution illegal hasn't stopped it. You state that women who become prostitutes are being forced by their circumstances to do so, then what good does making it illegal? Perhaps if the time and effort spent in a vain attempt to control it were spent examining and attacking the root causes of its existence (poverty, lack of education, lack of gainful employment for that segment of the population that turns to it) you'd have fewer women being forced to turn to that trade.

Andrew said...

Definition. lol.

Uh huh. You specifically asked about my beliefs. I agree with you, and I don't advocate the passing of laws to ban premarital sex or homosexuality. That's none of my business. What I object to is the passing of bullshit laws that silence me, and force me to salute a lifestyle that ultimately damages the foundations of society.
RU486 and the pill are both abortifacents. I would support a ban on their use; they cause the deaths of innocents.
As for prostitution, your argument doesn't make sense to me. Simply Keeping it illegal won't end it. It also won't exacerbate the disease angle as you suggest, -it's the status quo. What will exacerbate it is legalizing it.
It's an old liberal argument, "we can't stop all of it, so we might as well allow it, and show everybody how to do it safely." Sex education failed, Planned Parenthood's own records showed that teenage pregnancy soared in schools where sex education was introduced in the 1970's. 20 years of AIDs education hasn't ended the spread of that disease.
By comparison, Drinking and driving is no longer socially acceptable, and in a decline.

Agressively attacking the pimps and escort services that front for prostitution will do more good. Targeting their customers, Publicizing their identities. If the girls can't find customers, maybe they'll leave their pimps and drug dealers and get off the street.
The problem is that enforcement is spotty, penalities are insufficient, and anti-prostitution campaigns end all too quickly.