Posted on 07/24/2012 4:43:50 AM PDT by Olog-hai
A report issued by the United Nations-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law; recommends that nations around the world get rid of “punitive” laws against prostitution—or what it calls “consensual sex work”—and decriminalize the voluntary use of illegal injection drugs in order to combat the HIV epidemic. …
The commission calls laws against prostitution “bad laws,” and said criminalizing injecting drug use and prostitution stands in the way of “effective HIV responses.” …
Dr. Janice Crouse, the director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America in Washington, D.C., says the proposal to redefine and decriminalize prostitution worldwide is not new.
“(L)iberals have always used the term ‘sex work’ instead of prostitution,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They like to legitimize the whole industry that way so that it can be regulated and so that it can be considered a ‘legitimate option’ for women and give it more respectability. But, the sad fact is in every instance where prostitution has been legalized, illegal prostitution has flourished,” she said. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Fixing the AIDS problem is easy. Don't associated with faggots, whores or drug users and only have sex with your wife (or husband if you're a woman).
Within one generation HIV will die out as the stupid individuals who volunteered for this disease (and that is most of it's "victims") die out.
Maybe we should just put the UN in charge of passing our laws.
Yup, this is a win/win for the Liberals on so many levels:
1. Degrade morals (even more than they already are)
2. Generate tax revenue
3. Support a new (Brothel) bureaucracy
That being said, I’ve always had trouble understanding the legal distinction between pornography and prostitution. Somehow having the compensated sex act captured on film is perfectly legal and more “acceptable” than it being done in private. I guess the women (& men) doing it can claim they’re just “acting”. Yeah, sure.
Lastly, you just know some countries will embrace this full force and become brothels to the world (or providers of women for brothels). North Korea comes to mind.
More fatherless children - yea, that’s just what the world need.
Got to put those kids to work somehow /EXTREME SARCASM
I think it has been a long time since we have gotten this far without a paultard waxing on about how great legalising prostitution would be.
The perv herd is thinning.
I wouldn’t mind so much if these fringe ideas stayed in the fever swamps in which they were hatched. Unfortunately, leftists are totalitarians to their cores, so they insist on imposing their lunatic ideas on everyone else. They cannot countenance notions of federalism or local autonomy (true diversity, in other words). All must bow before their enlightenment.
The supposed champions of tolerance are the most intolerant ones in the bunch.
I would have hoped that the discussion about the UN report would be about decriminalization, not about the morality of prostitution and drug usage.
I must confess to being conflicted about this issue, but a wise man counts the costs of both sides of a decision.
While I would rather the UN locate their headquarters in another location, and distrust them as just another set of bureaucrats trying to encroach on my freedoms ... even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. It IS time we give the question of decriminalization a hard, careful look.
On the one hand, I fear decriminalization because of what happened with the decriminalization of sodomy; consider its horrible results:
* gay pride parades,
* gay marriages,
* don’t-ask-don’t-tell, then gays openly serving in the military,
* laws which prohibit discrimination against gays,
* lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for not admitting gays,
* promotion of homosexuality in school textbooks, and
* lawsuits against business owners who do not wish to transact with gays.
What would decriiminalization of drugs and prostitution lead to? “Ho pride” parades? High Times parades? I shudder. Few saw these consequences when the Federal Courts struck down the Texas Law against Sodomy.
But on the other hand, it appears to me that the current situation is unsustainable, as thousands of women are trafficed each year, and the drug war has led to the destruction of rights enumerated in the Constitution.
1) Prostitution is not called the oldest profession for nothing. The debate should not be whether there should be prostitution or not — whether we like it or not, prostitution is endemic in all large cities, and accessible via the internet or even the yellow pages. This is not a debate on the morality of prostitution, it is a debate on how we can minimize the harm that results from its existence. If you are not concerned about harm, then just kill every prostitute, every customer, and anyone connected to a brothel.
The debate should be whether it should be decriminalized or not. What would lead to the least harm to society and the prostitutes themselves - decriminalization with the resulting “Ho Pride Parades” but the reduction of coersion that results from decriminalization, or all the current consequences of keeping it underground. It is the underground nature of prostitution that leads to international trafficing of women. And there is lots of data available from Europe (and certain counties in Nevada) that could be used to craft the decriminalization statutes.
I note that, during WWII, the military in Hawaii concluded that regulating the brothels was preferable to driving them underground. The UN report simply pointed out that decriminalizing prostitution leads to the elimination of coercion currently resulting from the illegality itself.
2) I concluded some time ago that the “War on Drugs” is much worse than drug addiction itself. Again, the debate is not whether drug use is desirable or not, because there is no magic wand we could wave to make it disappear. The debate is whether the consequences of the drug decriminalization would be better or worse than the current consequences of the drug war. Even the “drug warriors” themselves are becoming disgusted with the drug war.
The drug war has led to:
* loss of financial privacy, and the virtual criminalization of the use of cash for large transactions
* the use of forfiture laws to bypass the right to property
* militarization of the police with no-knock warrants, and a culture of “law enforcement” rather than being “peace officers”.
* incarceration of a large fraction of the population (the largest in the world) for drug offenses, especially young black men [Complete hypocracy for Obama to prosecute the drug war when his book admitted that he imbibed himself]
* the rise of a culture of illegality in the black population of the inner cities,
* the complete corruption and smashing of the government of Mexico by the drug cartels, funded by illegal drug profits
* the loss of the right to travel through National Parks without encountering drug growers
* and many more.
So, again, the question is not whether you want your children to become drug addicts or not ... it is whether you want to have “high times parades” or a SWAT team to bust in and ruin your whole day. Again, if you are not concerned with harm reduction, then we can add another alternative — public lashing of anyone caught with any amount of drugs, and death for the dealers. Do you want to live in that society? Do you want your chldren to grow up in that society?
UN “Peacekeepers” stationed in warzones are notorious for raping girls and then sending them away with a can of food. Later, they claim the girl prostituted herself for the food.
No, a wise man knows what is moral and right and what is evil and depraved. A moral relativist does what you describe.
a wise man counts the costs of both sides of a decision
No, a wise man knows what is moral and right and what is evil and depraved.
I gather that, since they are depraved and evil, you are in favor of Option 3 - kill every prostitute (stoning would be a good choice), kill their customers(again, stoning would be good), kill anyone supporting a brothel, kill every drug user (even 13yo children), kill anyone who sells or transports any amount of illegal drugs. There are places on this earth which do that. Do you want to live there?
If you are not comfortable with that degree of punishment of evil and depravity, how do you decide what kind of punishments short of that should be applied to reduce the evil and depravity?
I would hope that you would look for a way to minimize the harm to the virtuous as well as punishing the depraved. And the virtuous are currently being victimized by trafficing in both women and drugs.
In any case, in making that decision, I suggest you would probably “count the costs”.
My BS detector is going off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.