[smacintush]

Can you justify using Roe v. Wade as a precedent for making prostitution a constitutionally protected practice?

Seems to me that since in the case of prostitution there is the absence of a fetus and thus the controversy of life or not-life, the case becomes even stronger. How CAN the federal government tell you out of one side of their mouth that it is your right to abort an unborn child, and tell you that you do not have the right to receive payment for sex?

Perhaps just as importantly…in the light of abortion law, SHOULD prostitution and similar pursuits be a right?

Maybe this is an issue that has been discussed many times before but I would like to read your opinions on this.

[BRussell]

I don't get it. "In the case of prostitution there is the absence of a fetus." What do you mean by that? In the case of the vast, vast majority of sexual acts - prostitution, marital sex, non-marital sex, etc. - there is no pregnancy, right?

[andi*pandi]

In the case of spaceships there is no fetus.
In the case of major league football there is no fetus.
In the case of wool-knit hats there is no fetus.
In the case of strategic oil reserves there is no fetus.
In the case of symbiotic relationships there is no fetus.

[ghporter]

The federal government is not in charge of either of these issues. That's all STATE law. And the two issues are completely and utterly unconnected.

[MacosNerd]

I don't know what Rev. Smacintush is smoking but what ever it is, it really is frying his brain. There's no connection between roe vs. wade and prostitution.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In the case of spaceships there is no fetus.
In the case of major league football there is no fetus.
In the case of wool-knit hats there is no fetus.
In the case of strategic oil reserves there is no fetus.
In the case of symbiotic relationships there is no fetus.

Yeah but is there a constitutional right to wool-knit hats? Hmm? Kinda didn't think that one all the way through, did you?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah but is there a constitutional right to wool-knit hats?

Off of my cold, dead head!

[ApeInTheShell]

I am not sure prostitution is covered by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments they used in Roe v. Wade to justify a right to privacy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell 

I am not sure prostitution is covered by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments they used in Roe v. Wade to justify a right to privacy.

I thought it was mainly the 14th.

[ApeInTheShell]

Correct. The Court used the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause to rule that a "fetus" was a person but many dissenters thought the Constitution was silent on this issue.

The Court also glued these other Amendment's together to allow a woman a right to privacy. These were penumbras of the Bill of Rights and were used in the Griswold v. Connecticut case.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell 

I am not sure prostitution is covered by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments they used in Roe v. Wade to justify a right to privacy.

I'm not sure abortion is covered by the rationale used in Roe v. Wade, but if it is, I don't see how prostitution isn't. How is going to a clinic and getting an abortion significantly more private than going to a brothel and having sex?

[ApeInTheShell]

I am just pointing out the Court used constitutional amendments for a right to privacy.

I do not think there is a difference. It is just a group of people using the Constitution to further their agenda.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't get it. "In the case of prostitution there is the absence of a fetus." What do you mean by that? In the case of the vast, vast majority of sexual acts - prostitution, marital sex, non-marital sex, etc. - there is no pregnancy, right?

The point was that in many arguments about abortion the focal point seems to be whether or not a fetus is "life" or not. In my post it is a similar question of a right for a woman to do what she wants with her own reproductive organs without all that nasty baby-murdering talk.

That is to say, it should be a more cut-and-dry issue IMO.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm not sure abortion is covered by the rationale used in Roe v. Wade, but if it is, I don't see how prostitution isn't. How is going to a clinic and getting an abortion significantly more private than going to a brothel and having sex?

Hey someone DOES get it!

I was beginning to worry.

[peeb]

I agree - prostitution should clearly be legal. The issue is simply that the prostitution lobby can't afford the lawyers to bring the case, I assume. Although payment in kind on a no-win no-fee basis should cover it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That is to say, it should be a more cut-and-dry issue IMO.

Separate from the constitutional issues, who are these people who think it should be illegal anyways?

Is there anyone here who does?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Can you justify using Roe v. Wade as a precedent for making prostitution a constitutionally protected practice?

Seems to me that since in the case of prostitution there is the absence of a fetus and thus the controversy of life or not-life, the case becomes even stronger. How CAN the federal government tell you out of one side of their mouth that it is your right to abort an unborn child, and tell you that you do not have the right to receive payment for sex?

Perhaps just as importantly…in the light of abortion law, SHOULD prostitution and similar pursuits be a right?

Maybe this is an issue that has been discussed many times before but I would like to read your opinions on this.

Umm, what point are you tring to make? There is NO logical equivalence between abortion and prostitution--one set of actions can occur independent of the other without any causation or correlation. (For example, a woman could spend her whole life as a prostitute and never get an abortion and a woman getting an abortion is highly likely to not engage in prostitution.) So, why would there be a legal equivalence between the two sets of actions?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Hey someone DOES get it!

I was beginning to worry.

Your argument that right to privacy (as promulgated in the Roe v. Wade decision) somehow applies to female prostitutes--I noticed you haven't yet mentioned male prostitutes and their privacy rights--ignores that the government can and does regulate peoples private lives in a myriad of other ways. Ever heard of the IRS? The Constitutional right to privacy does not permit you to hide your income from the government on Constitutional grounds. Or how about interstate commerce regulations: The government is allowed to open and inspect items moving across state lines for a variety of reasons. And if one of those packages is yours, you cannot claim a right to privacy for your package to prevent the government from opening it for inspection.


As for your real point--a not so veiled attack on the Constitutional basis for the Roe v. Wade decision--I think the logic used to support their decision is questionable. As it stands now, using the Constitution to protect a biological function could just as easily apply to urination or defecation. Yet, the federal courts, maybe even the SCOTUS, has deemed it not an invasion of privacy for governmental and non-governmental employers to require random drug testing as a condition of employment. So, the SCOTUS says one biological function should be protected (abortion) while other should not (urination/defecation). It seems like pretty screwy logic to me.

Having said all that, I think still that abortion should be legal and accessible to woman but the issue should be decided at the state level. For those states that want to outlaw abortion, let them. For those states that want to permit it, let them. A woman in need of an abortion will find a way to get one and those states that are abortion-friendly will find themselves getting a nice little economic boost from the (presumed) dominance in the abortion-delivery field.
[I have no problem treating abortion in purely economic terms. After all, we can discuss so many other major issues purely in terms of economics (subjects like education, incarceration, medical care), why not abortion?]

[ghporter]

Actually, the right to privacy was established quite a while before Roe v Wade in the Griswold v Connecticut case. The Ninth Amendment is very important here; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, there doesn't have to be an explicit "right to privacy" in writing for that right to exist. By demonstrating a variety of means through which privacy is protected in other parts of the Constitution, the justices established that individual and marital privacy were indeed protected.

Now, how prostitution and privacy actually coincide is kind of mysterious to me, having never had any desire or opportunity to indulge in said same activity. But it strikes me that offering one's body for money in a public place nullifies any protection on privacy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, what point are you tring to make? There is NO logical equivalence between abortion and prostitution--one set of actions can occur independent of the other without any causation or correlation. (For example, a woman could spend her whole life as a prostitute and never get an abortion and a woman getting an abortion is highly likely to not engage in prostitution.) So, why would there be a legal equivalence between the two sets of actions?

Oh come off it, the connection is as clear as day. Abortion rights are the right to do as you see fit with your OWN body. The same can be argued for prostitutes who choose to be prostitutes, and for that matter for drug addicts who choose to be drug addicts. Victimless crimes (well in the case of abortion, arguably).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

Separate from the constitutional issues, who are these people who think it should be illegal anyways?

Is there anyone here who does?

I think there are some here who do.

I know several IRL too, like my wife. Her reasoning is; "Cuz it's just not right."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, what point are you tring to make? There is NO logical equivalence between abortion and prostitution--one set of actions can occur independent of the other without any causation or correlation. (For example, a woman could spend her whole life as a prostitute and never get an abortion and a woman getting an abortion is highly likely to not engage in prostitution.) So, why would there be a legal equivalence between the two sets of actions?

Don't read too much into my intentions. I am not trying to draw any sinister parallels or anything like that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your argument that right to privacy (as promulgated in the Roe v. Wade decision) somehow applies to female prostitutes--I noticed you haven't yet mentioned male prostitutes and their privacy rights--

OK, let's include them too.

ignores that the government can and does regulate peoples private lives in a myriad of other ways. Ever heard of the IRS? The Constitutional right to privacy does not permit you to hide your income from the government on Constitutional grounds. Or how about interstate commerce regulations: The government is allowed to open and inspect items moving across state lines for a variety of reasons. And if one of those packages is yours, you cannot claim a right to privacy for your package to prevent the government from opening it for inspection.

NONE of this has to do with reproductive rights or even dominion over our own bodies.

As for your real point--a not so veiled attack on the Constitutional basis for the Roe v. Wade decision--

More assumption. I have no abortion "agenda",I don't think I have ever started a thread on abortion (though I have participated in others' threads) and I don't start threads trying to weasel my point across a la Abe. The point of the thread is as written.

I think the logic used to support their decision is questionable. As it stands now, using the Constitution to protect a biological function could just as easily apply to urination or defecation. Yet, the federal courts, maybe even the SCOTUS, has deemed it not an invasion of privacy for governmental and non-governmental employers to require random drug testing as a condition of employment.

Not the same thing. Drug use in the work place has consequequences that extend BEYOND the personal.

So, the SCOTUS says one biological function should be protected (abortion) while other should not (urination/defecation). It seems like pretty screwy logic to me.

What's screwy is that you call abortion a biological function. And that you CAN see a parallel between these yet not with abortion and a personal sexual act.

Either way, where have the courts come down on SEXUAL rights? Have they upheld the right of the government to legislate the sexual behaviours of two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms? Those cases are more applicaple than your weird poop/pee example.

Having said all that, I think still that abortion should be legal and accessible to woman but the issue should be decided at the state level.

I agree. I would also not object to a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. (the amendment process is the real genius of the constitution, not the re-interpretation of poorly worded texts)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But it strikes me that offering one's body for money in a public place nullifies any protection on privacy.

I think that is a separate issue. One does not have to be a street walker to be a prostitute and I don't have a problem with outlawing hooking.

How about in their homes? If a woman does this out of her home isn't she entitled to her privacy? Her entire business could be discreet and unobtrusive to any around her yet she can be charged with a crime and that isn't right. She can literally march in men one after the other for free and be ok but the minute she gets any amount of money in return she is a criminal?

Same with brothels. One can have reasonable restrictions on where and how they can operate without banning them.

[Mithras]

One thing I've never understood -- in states where prostitution is illegal, how is the production of pornography legal? You can pay a woman to have sex with someone else and let you film the act & distribute the film; but you can't pay a woman to have sex with you? What if you film it?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh come off it, the connection is as clear as day. Abortion rights are the right to do as you see fit with your OWN body. The same can be argued for prostitutes who choose to be prostitutes, and for that matter for drug addicts who choose to be drug addicts. Victimless crimes (well in the case of abortion, arguably).

The same could be argued (and should be, IMO) about women who chose to be prostitutes, as they harm no one else. The state has no right interfering in the behavior of two consenting adults, given that both of those adults are of sound legal mind and enter into a relationship willingly. A drug addict almost always becomes an unproductive member of society, via illegal and illicit actions to support their habit, and thus harms society as a whole.

This whole issue rests on religious beliefs, which shouldn't be, but are, used to proscribe law.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

A drug addict almost always becomes an unproductive member of society, via illegal and illicit actions to support their habit, and thus harms society as a whole.

Oh barf. Even if that were true, it's not reasonable to criminalize something just because of correlations like that. "Gays almost always become unproductive members of society, via not reproducing and having illegal butt-sex, not to mention if it weren't for gays we wouldn't have the HIV, and thus the gay harms society as a whole, and that's why it's illegal to be gay." No.

[Chongo]

Drugs, prostitution, and soon to come, smoking. For the longest time, tattooing was illegal in the US. That was also a "My Body" Issue. The problem that some see with abortion is you are dealing with someone else's body. I read a few years ago there was a Professor, correct if I am wrong on the university, from Michigan State argued that since the unborn child could not care for itself and was totally dependent on the mother for survival, it was the mother's prerogative whether to terminate or not. He went on to say that after giving birth she should still have that option for a fixed time period to terminate because the baby was still totally dependent on her.
But this is not about choice anyway. It is about money. Abortion is a multibillion dollar industry. Planned Parenthood (a "non profit" agency") alone made a 1 billion dollar profit last year from abortions.

[peeb]

Wrong Chongo. Planned Parenthood, by definition, does not 'profit' from abortions. Do some basic research before offering an opinion please.

[Chongo]

What do you call funds received in excess of expenditures then? Anyway, that is the same reason smoking will not be outlawed, because the governments will lose billions in tax revenues that are generated by tobacco sales.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What do you call funds received in excess of expenditures then? Anyway, that is the same reason smoking will not be outlawed, because the governments will lose billions in tax revenues that are generated by tobacco sales.

Huh?

Abortions generate tax revenue? I'm pretty sure, if anything, they destroy tax revenue.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh barf. Even if that were true, it's not reasonable to criminalize something just because of correlations like that. "Gays almost always become unproductive members of society, via not reproducing and having illegal butt-sex, not to mention if it weren't for gays we wouldn't have the HIV, and thus the gay harms society as a whole, and that's why it's illegal to be gay." No.

You must know a lot of drug addicts who are productive members of society. You're also making a huge stretch with the gay issue, which has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You must know a lot of drug addicts who are productive members of society.

Winston Churchill said that one of the secrets to his success was taking a nap... to sleep off his drunk.

[OldManMac]

There's a difference between sleeping off a drunken state (from which you awaken in a state where you're not fully functional in any case, but that's another thread), and being a drug addict whose primary concern is getting the next fix.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

There's a difference between sleeping off a drunken state (from which you awaken in a state where you're not fully functional in any case, but that's another thread), and being a drug addict whose primary concern is getting the next fix.

Try depriving an alcoholic of their next "fix" and see what happens.

Okay, don't try that since it can be fatal.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

Abortions generate tax revenue? I'm pretty sure, if anything, they destroy tax revenue.

Smoking, that is why it will never be banned.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Smoking, that is why it will never be banned.

I get that part, and am saying that the reason smoking will never be banned is a different reason than the one abortion has not (and likely will not) be banned.

You presented them as the same mechanism.

They both involve money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. My post pointed out a key dissimilarity.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

Abortions generate tax revenue? I'm pretty sure, if anything, they destroy tax revenue.

I did not say abortion generate tax revenue, it was in reference to if you are taking in more money than you are spending what do you call it if not profit. Planned parenthood had excess funds of 1 billion dollars from abortion services.

Originally Posted by subego 

I get that part, and am saying that the reason smoking will never be banned is a different reason than the one abortion has not (and likely will not) be banned.

You presented them as the same mechanism.

They both involve money, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. My post pointed out a key dissimilarity.

Both are billion dollar industries, and yes abortions does destroy future tax revenue. There would be several million more taxpaying individuals today if they had been born, mostly minorities, as they seem to be the ones utilizing Planned Parenthood's services the most. Social Security would also be better off today had those children been born.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I did not say abortion generate tax revenue, it was in reference to if you are taking in more money than you are spending what do you call it if not profit.

And you said that was the reason abortions will remain legal:

Originally Posted by Chongo

What do you call funds received in excess of expenditures then? Anyway, that is the same reason smoking will not be outlawed...

You are correct that abortions don't generate tax revenue, the only way for your above statement to be true is if they did.

[Chongo]

Someone is making a lot of money.

[stupendousman]

The mistake in this debate is assuming that the laws regulating abortion or prostitution make any sense or that the Constitution will ever be applied consistently.

If it's about "choice", then abortion should be legal, prostitution should be legal and men should not have responsibility for any choices made by a woman.

Of course, it's not about "choice" or constitutionality or anything else. It's about pushing the laws as far to the left as the appointees to the court can push them, while appeasing their friends in the lunatic feminist fringe.

That's it. Not much more need for debate, until the laws are applied fairly and consistently.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wrong Chongo. Planned Parenthood, by definition, does not 'profit' from abortions. Do some basic research before offering an opinion please.

More egomaniacal audacity.

Operating under its own set of regulations somehow unique to those of any other non-profit, Planned Parenthood paying its outgoing President an annual compensation package of over one million dollars, and enjoying over 1.5 billion dollars in the past several years in government grants only to turn around and use it to become one of the most powerful lobbying entities in existence... with your tax dollar.

Your tax dollar is hard at work though make no mistake about it. Consumer Reports found that the condoms handed out by this non-profit were among the absolute worst available for strength, reliability, and preventing pregnancies. Hmm. Interesting no? Maybe they should dig into that incredible "surplus" (what the otherwise sane would call "profit") and actually prevent pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood's goals?
- STDs? Up
- Children born into poverty? Up.
- Children born into fatherless homes? Up.
- Providing contraceptives to make abortions rare? The ratio of abortion clients to prenatal clients is nearly 10 to 1 proving that they're not planning parenthood at all. Fail.
- Safe abortions? Over 350 women dead due to this legal procedure. Fail.
- Crime reduction through genocide of black people and people in lower socioeconomic conditions? According to Freakonomics, arguable success, but then not really the solution eh?


Why is a third of this entity's fiscal budget funded by so many who oppose it and so little to show other than increasing abortion numbers?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your tax dollar is hard at work though make no mistake about it. Consumer Reports found that the condoms handed out by this non-profit were among the absolute worst available for strength, reliability, and preventing pregnancies.

Wow. That's pretty awful. I note that the CEO of Consumer Reports is on the Maryland board of Planned Parenthood too. Makes me believe it that much more.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- STDs? Up

This depends on the time frame you decide to use.

They're certainly down from 10 years ago.

Edit: 10 years ago from 2006, which is the most recent year I found statistics for.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Providing contraceptives to make abortions rare? The ratio of abortion clients to prenatal clients is nearly 10 to 1 proving that they're not planning parenthood at all. Fail.

What do you mean here?

Contraceptives aren't prenatal care.

I figure you know that, but for whatever reason (quite possibly my lack of understanding) the idea that they are is what you seem to be expressing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

What do you mean here?

Contraceptives aren't prenatal care.

I figure you know that, but for whatever reason (quite possibly my lack of understanding) the idea that they are is what you seem to be expressing.

I think he's saying that their efforts to provide contraceptives aren't doing much good, as they deal with a lot more unplanned pregnancies than planned ones.

[subego]

Things just keep coming to me as the day wears on. This is the last one until you respond. I promise.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Safe abortions? Over 350 women dead due to this legal procedure. Fail.

Separate from the fact that this statistic would be far more useful if it had a time period with it, I think this incorrectly implies that safety is solely an alive or dead proposition.

FWIU, one of the now recanted founders of the legalize abortion movement still stands behind his claim that what prompted him to start the movement was the overwhelming number of people he treated for complications arising from illegal abortions. IOW, just because the illegal abortion wasn't likely to kill you, didn't mean it was by any means safe.

You will find that the numbers of complications from abortions (by percentage) has been vastly reduced. This means they are safer. Ergo: win.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think he's saying that their efforts to provide contraceptives aren't doing much good, as they deal with a lot more unplanned pregnancies than planned ones.

That seems to be making an unfounded assumption about the overlap between those who get contraceptives and those who get abortions.

The SO has gotten contraceptives from PP. She's never had an abortion or gotten pregnant. Why isn't she in the win category?

She demands her medal!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You will find that the numbers of complications from abortions (by percentage) has been vastly reduced. This means they are safer. Ergo: win.

Totally the wrong way to make a determination on overall harm.

If 10% off all legal abortions have potential for dangerous complications now, versus say 40% of all illegal abortions...you could say that "by percentage" they are safer.

Though, if you have 1 million abortions now, and only say 100,000 bacl when they were illegal, you have 40,000 women at risk then and 100,000 now. That's MORE woman at risk for abortion complications no matter how you want to spin it. On top of that, you have a HUGE increase in the number of deaths to the unborn. The legalization of abortion has put more women at risk and ended up with more of the unborn dead. I don't see how that is anything other than FAIL.

Granted, my numbers I pulled out of my butt, but I'd be willing to bet that the ratios aren't far off.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Totally the wrong way to make a determination on overall harm.

I wasn't making a determination of overall harm. If I was I would have stated so.

However, you do get an irony point for having your straw man lob accusations of spin.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This depends on the time frame you decide to use.
They're certainly down from 10 years ago.
Edit: 10 years ago from 2006, which is the most recent year I found statistics for.

It also depends on the STD in question and the related age group. Gonorrhea, Genital herpes
PID, and HPV are all on the rise among those between 15 and 24 years old as I understand it. The majority of those seeking services such as planned parenthood. Granted, much of this is due in part to greater diagnosis and screening so... I'll concede that point on a draw between success and failure. There are others I didn't mention including the ABC link to breast cancer which used to regularly get me laughed out of the thread only to find out I was in fact correct.

Originally Posted by subego

just because the illegal abortion wasn't likely to kill you, didn't mean it was by any means safe.

The same exact can be said for legal abortions provided by Planned Parenthood.

My main reason for mentioning the ratio of abortions in the same statement as contraceptive dissemination unfortunately was jumbled thoughts. I'm not saying it's causal, but it is wholly ironic. The main point is simply to illustrate that this entity is not appropriately named IMO.

The 350 women dead are from the time of Roe V Wade. You may be thinking; "well, this doesn't really indicate anything profound" and I'd counter by saying the statistic of those cited as having sought the "back alley" abortion as a justification for legalizing it were equally low.