On the control panel of the Xanga site, I get little notifications of so and so recommended article X by blogger Y. One of these recommendations was on an article written advocating women having the right to be prostitutes. I have no idea why this article was recommended, because the argument put forth is a poor one.
Reading through this I am reminded of the maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).
This article starts out by saying: I've never met a prostitute, spoke to one, nor can I really say have I ever seen one. This is an indication that whatever she is basing her beliefs on, it is not founded on the actual experience of the prostitute, neither the type taking part in the illegal type or the legal type.
This is a warning right off the bat that there is no reason in this sort of statement. If I think that prison guards should "be trained differently so as not be so harsh" but have no concept of the experience of the prison guard (whether from hearing from them personally or studying about them) then on what basis does the opinion have any credibility?
The article claims:
Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me. The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes. I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was. Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood.
There are several errors here, both logical and factual.
The factual error first, to avoid being distracted on a red herring, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, though some Christians made the connection from two incidents which have similarities. The term "Magdelines" comes from this misunderstanding.
Now on to the logical errors:
Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me.
This is a form of an Argument from Silence. If "I" can't think of a reason, there must not be one. GK Chesterton however pointed out the problem with this form of thinking:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
I think the bolded parts of this quote are especially relevant. To argue that because one can't see the use of it therefore we must end it is the height of reckless folly. Let those who would seek to allow the legalization of prostitution show they understand why it was declared illegal before we allow them to dismantle what was before.
"The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes."
This is a tu quoque fallacy. Whether or not some men who make laws make use of prostitutes is of no relevance on whether or not prostitution is illegal. Some lawmakers who make laws on bribery accept bribes. Should bribery then be legalized? Or does it mean some lawmakers are hypocrites? Hypocrisy on the part of some lawmakers is not a valid reason to negate a law.
"I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was."
This is a false comparison. The woman did not remain a prostitute. Christ forgave sinners, but also admonished them to "go and sin no more." Indeed the work of the Church with "Magdelines" was to help them escape from this lifestyle, and find a more decent lifestyle.
"Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood"
So what we have then are women exploited due to their desperate circumstances, whether poverty, addiction, lack of education or whatever. Under the author's proposal, the women may now be legally exploited.
Legalizing prostitution will not help these women. Helping them overcome their lack of education, addictions and poverty so they are not forced into this sort of lifestyle out of desperation will.
The author goes on to say:
I think the state of Nevada does a pretty decent job with the legalization of prostitutes. The kind of person who wants to purchase and the type of person selling is going to be far different from the normal person like me or you. If we provide safety and regulation it makes the "profession" cleaner and maybe not so "wrong".
The first sentence is an opinion and needs to be measured against the reality to see if it is reasoned or uninformed. The women who are prostitutes there are generally the same type as those who practice illegally. What the state has done is merely say "pass health tests and don't walk the streets." However, this has not eliminated illegal prostitution. Rather it has given sanction to certain pimps to operate legally for paying a fee. Women receive no benefits, pay half of their take to the brothel (more, as a cab driver's bonus comes out of the woman's cut as well). In the meantime, illegal "escort services" and child prostitution abound. Legalization then only benefits some pimps and the women they hire. It has no bearing on other woman unable or unwilling to enter into the brothel system.
Another item of concern, is whether legalization does improve the plight of these women or whether it makes exploitation easier. Las Vegas has been identified as one of the top 17 places where sexual trafficking takes place. This speaks against the "safer and cleaner" argument. Safer for the "John" perhaps. Not safer for the women. Making it "not so 'wrong'" has done nothing to help these women.
The author continues:
Sure, we strive for our little girls to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, and ladies in the church choir. There will always be one girl that rebels, and we have to defend her right to make ends meet.
Or, to apply an Absurdum ad reductio, we could make the same argument that we have to defend their right to be a drug pusher. A girl who rebels to do something illegal does not justify making that thing legal.
The author finishes by saying:
Maybe we should focus our attention on making it a right to be a prostitute, but educate girls about the harms (mentally, socially, etc) and get these girls on a better track to greener pastures. If we are in a country where right now women have the right to abort their unborn, shouldn't women have the right to sell their bodies if they want?
Such is certainly the self-destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade. Because society argues that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child, there is little reason for them to oppose other actions. However, the fact something is legal does not make it right. Once upon a time, slavery was legal and logical questions could be asked based on the assumption that a slave was not a person. However, if that premise was false, the conclusions would be too.
Likewise, if abortion was wrongly legalized, conclusions based on that legalization are necessarily false.
As to the statement itself, it does not support a point for legalizing prostitution. Educating prostitutes to change their lifestyle does not need to be done in the context of legalization (her argument here is a non sequitur). Legalization seems more likely to keep women in the lifestyle, not move on to "greener pastures."
This article shows the truth of the maxim Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).
No comments:
Post a Comment