I see sex work as somewhat analogous to coal mining. It’s not that it isn’t real work, or that those who work in that capacity don’t deserve rights, dignity, or a society that works for them. The problem, of course, is the ever-present exploitation of the workers coupled with the severe unpleasantness of the occupation which ensures that the people who do work these jobs are those with few other options. That isn’t to say that all sex workers and/or coal miners are miserable. Even so, the patterns around this kind of work are unmistakable.
Given these facts, I think most reasonable people understand that sex work should go extinct. That isn’t to say that you can’t make pornography or have sex with strangers. However, it’s impossible to gauge enthusiastic consent when money is changing hands, and enthusiastic consent is a vital component for an ethical sexual encounter.
My question for the community is how exactly this is meant to be accomplished. How can sex work be abolished without harming the very people it’s meant to protect? The number one problem western sex workers face, more so than creepy clients, is the cops, who profile them, steal their wages, and arrest them on a whim. Clearly, criminalizing sex work hasn’t done much for sex workers. What are some alternatives?
I understand the line of thinking, whether you think it is negative morally or slightly annoying, most people will agree it’s better to reduce the need for abortions by addressing the reasons people get them. Is it not desireable to have fewer unwanted pregnancies? Even if you are completely pro-choice you’re not going to convince all the Catholics immediately, why not do what is positive for both? Also, many people would like to have children, but don’t have the means to do such, and therefore abort. This is why abortion was originally supported by eugenicists.
For what reason? I’m genuinely wondering here.
This line gives me centrist vibes for some reason.
Also, why do we need to appease to the religious anyway? Not like most of them would support LGBT rights either anyway, let alone basic rights for women such as the right to have full control to their own wombs. By that logic, we should continue to also oppress LGBT people like in Stalin’s USSR just because most religious people find gays and trans people “icky”.
So what, we should keep women from having control over their own wombs just because a few eugenicists supported it? Jesus.
deleted by creator
Okay, then why did they say in the next line that that’s why abortion was originally supported by eugenicists? How is
[being forced to abort for not having the means to raise a kid]
even equatable to eugenics? I thought Eugenics was about only having humans with the most “pure/good” genes live?deleted by creator
My point about eugenics is that some eugenicists support contraception and abortion because they see it as a positive if (poorer) non-white people will reproduce less. For example a lot of WEF types support such things being promoted in the third world because they think they’re overpopulating the planet, and people will choose to (or be forced to) use such more.
Wait… do they also not support it being promoted in the First/Second World?
They probably do, but mostly to look consistent, and so people will think you’re just a normal philanthropic liberal.
I’m not opposed to abortion, i was saying that it would be better that people have resources to raise children if they’d like, rather than abortion being the only option.