Yet Another Abortion Argument

[xxlt]

(09-15-2016, 02:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: People say "we're not ok with abortion, but it's the woman's body and her choice."

So all of you that argue that think prostitution should be legal?  It's her body and her choice.

How's it different?

It isn't different. They should both be legal.

Brad's head exploding in 3...2...1

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Anyone notice that Brad tucked and ran from this thread ages ago?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-15-2016, 05:57 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: While I don't see the connections drawn in the OP nor am I particularly sympathetic to his viewpoint, I believe the bold lines for which you responded are intended to mean that while there is a technical distinction there is NO moral distinction between the two.  I'm sure you will be getting a direct response from BFritz likely making the same point here soon.  Not sure why I chose this particular post to clarify one poster's point to another poster, but maybe I'm getting bored.

That is how I understood his comment; no difference on a moral level. So on a moral level there is no difference for those who participate in prostitution or porn. Participation would include the consumer. So if Brad has ever watched a porn on a moral level it would be the same as prostitution which apparently Brad objects to. I'm just wondering if Brad understands that point.

[masterpanthera_t]

(09-16-2016, 11:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is how I understood his comment; no difference on a moral level. So on a moral level there is no difference for those who participate in prostitution or porn. Participation would include the consumer. So if Brad has ever watched a porn on a moral level it would be the same as prostitution which apparently Brad objects to. I'm just wondering if Brad understands that point.

Yup, makes sense.  I really don't know how I missed this on the first read, it's clear as day.  I think I agree on your points, but as a devil's advocate let me make Brad's argument for him:  he can contend that he has reformed himself and therefore has the right to hold his stance (this is the only intellectually honest viewpoint I can think of that allows for the consistency in the statements).  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2016, 12:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yup, makes sense.  I really don't know how I missed this on the first read, it's clear as day.  I think I agree on your points, but as a devil's advocate let me make Brad's argument for him:  he can contend that he has reformed himself and therefore has the right to hold his stance (this is the only intellectually honest viewpoint I can think of that allows for the consistency in the statements).  

I think one can object to something for moral reasons without believing the government needs to outlaw that something. However, many people don't seem to agree. Brad is one of those who doesn't agree. 

[masterpanthera_t]

(09-16-2016, 12:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think one can object to something for moral reasons without believing the government needs to outlaw that something. However, many people don't seem to agree. Brad is one of those who doesn't agree. 

Agreed.  I think I should have framed my last statement as "let me make the argument for someone who holds Brad's stance on this topic", not specifically Brad.  That's what I intended anyway.  

[xxlt]

(09-16-2016, 11:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is how I understood his comment; no difference on a moral level. So on a moral level there is no difference for those who participate in prostitution or porn. Participation would include the consumer. So if Brad has ever watched a porn on a moral level it would be the same as prostitution which apparently Brad objects to. I'm just wondering if Brad understands that point.

Doubtful. But then again, none of us seem to understand his point, per Brad.

[THE Bigzoman]

(09-16-2016, 07:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: seems you might not understand the economics behind making something like prostitution legal. Prostitution exists simply because there is demand for it. Right now the supply is illegal. When they only way to meet demand is illegal activity it attracts people already doing illegal things to get involved, this is where the pimps and trafficking comes into play. Now, pimps that traffic will likely continue to be a problem for some time, but when police can focus on that rather than all prostitution, it allows a freeing of resources. They would also lose business because if someone has two choices, one legal, one illegal, but the same otherwise, people will more often than not take the legal option even if price is a little higher because of the risk factor.

Pimps that don't traffic exist for protection. Protection from johns since they can't go to the law, and from the law itself. With the status of prostitution as a legal industry, they would be able to go to the police if something were to happen. This would actually offset any of your potential increase in production costs as it cuts out someone else that is taking a cut of the revenue and replaces it with taxes and licensing.

I read the first bits and stopped.

Not that I'm ignoring you or any of the contentions I got. It's just that I want to give this my undivided attention and brainpower when I get off of work. If I overlooked something, I'd like to know about it.

[BFritz21]

(09-16-2016, 10:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Anyone notice that Brad tucked and ran from this thread ages ago?

Actually, I've just been busy and haven't even been on this forum in a while.

Thanks for proving what a bias joke poster you are, though.

I'm on my way out the door now, but was just checking if any messages had been sent or anything major had happened.

Kudos on claiming victory on something that wasn't even right, though 

[Vas Deferens]

(09-16-2016, 04:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Actually, I've just been busy and haven't even been on this forum in a while.

Thanks for proving what a bias joke poster you are, though.

I'm on my way out the door now, but was just checking if any messages had been sent or anything major had happened.

Kudos on claiming victory on something that wasn't even right, though 

huh?

[xxlt]

(09-16-2016, 04:21 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: huh?

Wow, I didn't see Vas Deferens showing up in an abortion thread. Now it gets interesting.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-16-2016, 04:39 PM)xxlt Wrote: Wow, I didn't see Vas Deferens showing up in an abortion thread. Now it gets interesting.

I'm stepping in for absent OP. 

[*michaelsean*]

I didn't go through the whole thread, but Brad that's not a very good argument. I'm against abortion and think prostitution should be legal. I could see a city regulating street walkers, but I see no reason why anyone can have sex with anyone unless there is money exchanged.