[Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)
Hangsinthe Balance
Andreas Schou
ophite at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 23:06:46 PST 2006
Phil --
There definitely is an inconsistency in these laws. I do believe, though,
that there's an underlying right that has been poorly articulated by both
liberals and conservatives -- largely both sides have some sort of
compelling interest. Liberals don't want to look like wimps on crime, and
conservatives, especially religious conservatives, often believe that
maintaining social order overrides any thinking about "rights". I realize
that you may be toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, so don't think
that I'm talking about you.
From the point of view of the prostitute or the point of view of the addict,
these crimes are victimless. The prostitute isn't hurting anyone but
themself. The addict isn't hurting anyone but themself. From the point of
view of the prostitute's pimp or john, or the point of view of the addict's
dealer, there is a victim: the prostiute or addict themself.
As a domestic violence advocate, I am well-acquainted with crimes in which
there exists a certain amount of consent on the part of the victim. People
often choose to stay in abusive relationships because they have a compelling
economic interest, or because they might lose their housing if they leave
the perpetrator, and so on and so on. But despite the fact that they consent
to an aspect of the crime -- they don't report it -- this does not mean that
a crime has not occurred. A criminal act is not a tort: it is not just an
offense against another person, but also an offense against the civil order.
While I agree with the general legal principle that victimless crimes should
not exist, it's a profoundly bad legal idea to start to allow people to
consent to crimes committed against them. This legalizes, amongst other
things, duelling, prostitution, drugs, and most domestic violence,.
In terms of drugs, an effective and sensible policy might be to punish those
who sell and treat those who ingest -- which handles the drug issue from a
supply and demand perspective. In terms of prostitution, arrest the johns,
arrest the pimps, provide services to the prostitutes. There exists a strong
principle in Western law that economic coercion should be illegal: I cannot
offer you a deal whereby I don't shoot you in the head in exchange for a
thousand dollars. It should likewise be illegal to offer a deal where you
provide a twelve hour respite from a serious medical condition -- withdrawal
-- in exchange for far more than the product is worth.
I admit that some ambiguity exists in both situations. Selling pot?
Basically a victimless crime. Despite eighty years of trying to convince
America, marijuana is still not addictive. Well regulated escort services
with well-paid escorts? Not intrinsically exploitive. But these are the
exceptions, not the rule, and in these cases -- as with the case of abortion
-- I am willing to allow a little fudging around the edges in order for
things to be run smoothly and for competing interests to be allowed some
leeway. I don't demand, for instance, the total legalazation of abortion
twenty minutes before birth: there exists, in that case, a definite
competing interest on the part of the fetus-soon-to-be-infant.
This was probably more words than the question demanded, but this is
something I've really thought about.
-- ACS
-- ACS
On 1/18/06, Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andreas
>
> I am not sure that control of ones body is a complete right in all
> circumstances either. Society makes rules with respect to perfectly
> logical
> functions like expectoration and defecation, the right to sell ones own
> organs or the right to sell the services of ones own body. If the right
> to
> privacy in the actions one takes with respect to ones body was an
> absolute,
> the act of prostitution could not be found to be illegal, since after all,
> the body parts of the two individuals involved in such an act are
> definitely
> parts belonging to the two people contracting in privacy to use something
> that definitely does not belong to the state.
>
> I have often found it strange that there is an assumed universal right to
> privacy with respect to an abortion, but no such right exists for people
> involved in victimless crimes. We now have the right to kill ourselves if
> we are of sound mind, but if the same person of sound mind decides to
> ingest
> certain substances, they can and will be jailed for long periods of time.
> The substance used for the act of suicide can indeed be the same substance
> that in the non-lethal situation would place the person in jail.
>
> Similarly, if a man takes a woman to dinner, a show, gives her flowers and
> a
> gift of jewels and ends up in bed with her, there is a supposed right of
> privacy in the transaction. But if the same two people exchange far less
> cash and hop into bed, they are doing so criminally and their right to
> privacy ceases to exist, including a right of the government to film them
> in
> the act in Technicolor with Dolby sound for effect.
>
> Perhaps it is best said, as did the Immortal Bard, the law is an ass. The
> only thing consistent in the privacy issue is its very inconsistency.
>
> Phil Nisbet
>
>
>
> >From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com, Nick Gier <ngier at uidaho.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)
> >Hangsinthe Balance
> >Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:28:01 -0800
> >
> >The right to an abortion is not the right to terminate another human
> life.
> >There exists no right to terminate another human life; otherwise, the
> right
> >to abortion would extend to infanticide and murder. It does not.
> >
> >The right that exists in an abortion is the right to control the
> processes
> >of your own body. Society has no right to dictate whether or not you are
> >pregnant. It has no right to dictate whether you receive life-saving
> >treatment if you don't want it. And, as the Supreme Court affirmed
> >yesterday, it has no right to control whether or not you die, if that
> >decision is being made from rational deliberation and not under the
> >compulsion of mental illness.
> >
> >You do not have the right to purchase whatever you like. If such a right
> >existed, I would be driving to work in my gold-plated jet-powered Rolls
> >Royce, when I felt like it. This is because resources are scarce; rights
> >are
> >not. The scarce resource to be allocated in this case -- which, I might
> >add,
> >we have the <i>right</i> to allocate in a democracy -- is Moscow's retail
> >business. Should we really allocate every last dollar of Moscow's retail
> >business to a business, simply because it can afford to eat ten years of
> >zero profits and no other business in town can?
> >
> >I really don't know why I'm doing this again, Donovan. It must be some
> >infinite optimism about the basic reasonability of mankind. I've got to
> say
> >though: you've put a pretty big dent in infinity..
> >
> >-- ACS
> >
> >On 1/18/06, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No where in any of my posting did I state I was for illegalizing
> >abortion
> > > Hansen nor did I make any correction. Pretty sad I have to post it
> TWICE
> >or
> > > three times and you still do not comprehend.
> > >
> > > Now you know why I have to post three or four time. You cannot read or
> > > comprehend arguments that are beyond the basic cookie cutter arguments
> >where
> > > you are told how to think and respond with a set of preset responses.
> > >
> > > Again, why is it that a women's choice to terminate the life of a
> > > developing human MORE PARAMOUNT then her right to buy, sell, and trade
> > > property with whom she wishes for essential goods that impact her
> >quality of
> > > life?
> > >
> > > How can one make one argument with the other?
> > >
> > > Are you only for women making a freedom of choice providing it is a
> >choice
> > > you agree with?
> > >
> > > _DJA
> > >
> > > *Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Arnold.
> > >
> > > However, I posted prior to your second (or was it third?) correction.
> > >
> > > You really must get out more, Arnold.
> > >
> > > Enough said.
> > >
> > > Tom Hansen
> > > Moscow, Idaho
> > >
> > > "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
> > > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather
> to
> >skid
> > > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body
> >thoroughly
> > > used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"
> > > ------------------------------
> > > *From:* Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com]
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:03 PM
> > > *To:* Tom Hansen; 'Nick Gier'; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she
> shops)
> > > Hangs inthe Balance
> > >
> > > Hansen,
> > >
> > > Do you read what the other person writes before responding? Seriously.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > > "Simply eliminating legal abortions will not eliminate abortions
> > > altogether, Arnold."
> > >
> > > My argument, if you actually read it, you would have discovered that I
> > > stated I OPPOSED illegalizing abortion.
> > >
> > > It is you that wish to impose your preferences and beliefs on other
> > > people, just like the religious right, you just have a different set
> of
> > > preferences and beliefs that you wish to impose on me.
> > >
> > > Take Care,
> > >
> > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net !
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
> > > Photo
> >Books<
> http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photobooks/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38088/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=photobook_splash.html
> >.
> > > You design it and we'll bind it!
> > >
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> >_____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060118/1cbab802/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list