the salt makers

Liberal:

There are many areas where I think the government oversteps their boundaries and that should be included in the zone of privacy.   The government should stay out of the abortion arena. Who are they to tell a woman she MUST have a baby?  It truly is none of their business.  While I would never dream of having an abortion, neither would I presume to tell someone else that they can't.   With so many circumstances as to why women choose abortion, it should be a private decision.

I also do not think that the government should have any say in who gets to marry whom.  If we all have equal rights under the law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, why does the government get to decide who can marry whom?  The bible defines marriage as that between a man and a woman, however the government should be separate from religion so this is a lame excuse.

The last area where I think the government has no business is with prostitution.  As long as the girls are not getting physically harmed, are not minors, and are not forced to prostitute, where is the problem?  

Me:

The problem with prostitution is that is condones an immoral act. It promotes the objectification of women. It perpetuates the patriarchal status quo. The legal sanctioning helps corrupt our youth, showing them that paying for sex is morally permissible.

We do have equal rights under the constitution. Heterosexuals can't marry their same sex just as homosexuals can't marry their same sex. The rules apply to both sides equally. You'll say that it doesn't affect one side, and you'd be right. But you can't say that the rules don't apply equally.

Just a question on the abortion issue: I presume that you would whole-heartedly agree that the objectification of women is wrong, and should be precluded as best as it can be. I completely agree with the notion that abortion has given men the opportunity and encouragement to objectify women. Why? Because they know that they can sleep around, and if their partner gets pregnant, then they can probably convince them to have an abortion. So many young women are pro-choice now, there isn't much fear they wouldn't want to do so. How do you reconcile these two views? How do you support something that objectifies women? Relegates them even more to the status of sexual objects?

Another question: you say that you would never dream of having an abortion, yet you also would never tell someone else they can't. The only answer I can think of to the question of why you would "never dream" of having an abortion is that somewhere, deep inside perhaps, you believe that the fetus is more than just a conglomeration of cells. But maybe I can't think as a woman does.

Liberal:

As long as the woman is prostituting because she wants to, I don't consider it men exploiting women.  Women have minds and know how to use them.  As I said, if she is doing it against her will, or she is a minor, then I object.  Immoral acts don't necessarily constitute illegal acts. 

If a heterosexual wanted to marry the same sex, they would be homosexual or at least bisexual.  Don't understand your point here at all.  Ask any homosexual if the laws are equal and you aren't going to find any who agree with you.

You must really think women are weak if you think that men can CONVINCE us to have abortions.  Some, I would agree are, but most have minds that we can use to decide what is best for ourselves.  I certainly don't equate abortion rights with women being sexual objects.  I will save that for Playboy Swimsuit Models and Playboy Bunnies.  I would never be able to live with myself if I had an abortion, but other women have no problem with it.  It is not my place to try and convince them that they are wrong and I am right.  I wouldn't want anyone to tell me I had to have an abortion and I won't tell anyone else that they shouldn't.  Personal choices have to be lived with by individuals and if it doesn't bother them, why would it bother me?

Me:

I would say that just because you don't consider it exploitation, does not make it not exploitation. When you pay someone for sex, you are using them as a sexual object. This commands no respect or equality. Even if it is voluntary, it makes no difference. You are still reducing women to nothing more than entertainment.

What I said was that abortion permits men to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners without the repercussions of pregnancy. They know that many women are pro-choice and that they can possibly convince them to do so, if they don't already want to. But chances are, they would if they are very young. You may not "equate abortion rights with women being sexual objects," but once again, just because you don't equate that, doesn't mean it isn't so. Sexual objectification is a huge problem in our society, and institutions such as prostitution and abortion only perpetuate this.

Also, you missed my question: why is it that you couldn't live with yourself after an abortion? Clearly, you seem repulsed by the idea, as your rhetoric is very strong. Why is this? It certainly can't be because you think that an abortion clears nothing more than a conglomeration of cells out of your body, right? I mean, you would be OK with removing a cyst from your ovaries or a wart from your skin. Is it because somewhere inside of you, you feel that it is more than just cells? Perhaps a life? I can't think of any other answers myself, but maybe you can. And if that is the case, then you now have your justification for telling someone what they can do with their personal choices.

Personal choices can very easily hurt other people. I can make the personal choice to kill my neighbor. Why should that bother you? It does, and it should. But it's a personal choice, those things you say are only lived with by the individual. This is simply not true. Personal choices often affect other people, and there is your justification for telling them what they should or shouldn't do. Furthermore, when people are committing clearly immoral acts, you can tell them they are doing the wrong thing. To not do so would be to do your friend or neighbor an injustice.

Furthermore, you say you will leave the sexual objectification (or exploitation) to the Playboy models, but that you don't equate prostitution with sexual objectification(or exploitation). Can you explain how posing in a nude magazine is more sexually objectifying than taking money to have sex, one of the most intimate experiences people can share?

Also, if voluntarily being a prostitute doesn't exploit or objectify women, why is it that posing in a magazine voluntarily makes you an object? Isn't having money for sex much worse than just posing in a magazine?

Liberal Friend:

in response to Zachary:

-prostitution can be seen as objectification of women, but that view is generally taken by anti-sex feminists.  pro-sex feminists believe that a woman can feel empowered through sexual activity, and many sex workers feel that making money through sex is an empowering thing.  the view of objecification is simply resultant of perspective.

-as for the issue of homosexual marriage, the rules may apply equally, but one side is still being treated unfairly. if straight males were the ones being affected, i'm sure that your response to angel's statement would be very different.

-i am strongly pro-choice, and see absolutely no connection between the objectification of women and their freedom to choose what to do with their bodies.  just because a woman knows she is able to get an abortion if necessary will not make her more apt to sleep around.  the reality is, less than 1% of u.s women use abortions as a form of "birth control"...most use them only one or twice in accidental situations, when medical complications are involved, when they are victims of rape or incest, or when they are economically unable to care for the baby. making the statement that the availability of abortion causes women to be more sexually active and sexually manipulated is naive and sexist.

as well, the choice to have an abortion is one that some agree with and that others do not.  however, angel is right...even if she doesn't feel an abortion is right for her, she has no right (and neither does the government) to tell someone what they should or should not do with their body.  to attempt to make her feel guilty for feeling the way that she does is cold and callous.

Me:

Sara,

To say that the objectification of women in prostitution is simply a matter of "perspective" is wrong because to say this is to say that everything is a matter of "perspective." It's not "racial preferences" it's "affirmative action" or it's not "handouts" it's "welfare." You can justify anything by saying it's simply a matter of perspective, and if most people believed this then we would surely be in trouble. To say this is to deny the existence of truth, that a true "perspective" doesn't exist.

What you do is assert what some feminists say. What you don't do is address my arguments as to why it objectifies women. You can assert that sex is "empowering," but you'll have to justify it. And even if it is granted that it "empowers" women, which personally I think is simply a way to justify promiscuity for women, then you still have to answer why it isn't objectifying. These two results are not mutually exclusive. You can be empowered in one way and objectified in another. Personally, if women want to be treated equally, I believe you'll have to stop supporting prostitution. It can't be denied that in the act of paying for sex, men treat the women nothing more than objects for their own means, thus objectification. No self-respecting woman with a good education will choose to be a prostitute. Ever wonder why? Because they know it demeans them to objects that are bought for money. Entertainment. Even if these feminists view sex as "empowering" I doubt they would still propone prostitution. They can't possibly believe that sex in any circumstance is "empowering."

On the issue of homosexual marriage: I'm not really interested in pursing this issue because it is not very important to me. What do want to do, however, is let you know that the most effective way to persuade someone is not to reduce the issue to a personal level, and you and Angelic made these type of points in the death penalty debate. "Well, you wouldn't believe that if it affected you." Actually, I would. If people didn't believe in the things they say once it was brought in front of their face, then no one would believe anything. That's what a belief is. It's mutable, but firm. I don't believe in welfare. "Well, you would think differently if you were poor." I don't believe in the death penalty. "Well, you would if your parents were murdered." These responses are not apposite, and only hinder dialectic. And just to answer: Yes, if it involved me I would still believe this. I believe war can be a great tool to protect people. Would I believe that if I were drafted? Certainly. I'm in the military as we speak. Clearly, I stand by my convictions regardless of the consequences.

Abortion: You may fail to see the connection between abortion and an increase in sexual activity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You cannot pretend that having abortion available does not increase the likelihood of someone having sex. As with anything, when repercussions vanish, an act increases. If weed became legal, more people would do it. If drinking became legal at 16, more 16 year olds would drink. It is not naive and "sexist," it's simply a logical conclusion.

Furthermore, as with our previous death penalty debate, your statistics are skewed. Here are actual statistics:

# Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
# Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
# Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
# Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
# Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
# Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
# Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
# Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
# Other: 2.1%

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

This is a whopping 70.5% having abortions just because they don't want children, or it's inconvenient. Of the reasons you cited, which are your implied "justified" reasons, it is only 29.5% of abortions. So how can the 1% statistic be true?

I don't understand how you think I'm trying to "guilt" her. If asking her questions about the rhetoric she uses is a "guilt" trip, then I am guilty. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I don't mean to guilt anyone out of their beliefs, but they must be backed up by careful reasoning and statistics, if available. My questions are neither cold nor callous. If being asked to qualify your beliefs is "callous" then this world is truly in trouble.

However, most of my arguments were ignored and feel they should be answered in order to truly convince me of my wrong beliefs. And you cannot justify a belief by saying it's simply not "right" for me. It's simply not "right for me" to obey the law. It's simply not "right for me" to not kill my neighbor. It's simply not "right for me" to not be an alcoholic or a drug head. This qualifies no belief system.

Liberal:

(No Response)

--

Zachary Sonnier