morphy@cobalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/27/90)
In the Caribbean, during the period of African slavery, 400 years or so, there was also white slavery. In my country, for instance, there were Irish and Scottish white slaves, known as indentured servants. These were people who had signed away their freedom for a price. By modern standards, such a contract would be unenforceable. We now view a person as having attached firmly to themselves certain inalienible rights that cannot be sold or bought. We now view our forebears' approach to the question of human rights as primitive and untenable. I feel that the same approach to maternal rights must be taken. The idea that a woman can be treated purely as gestational equipment has a long and dishonourable history. I simply do not agree that surrogacy contracts should be enforceable. We already have laws which render void the offering of children for adoption for financial gain. We should immediately extend such laws to surrogacy to prevent the kinds of chaos we are seeing now. I believe that that to some extent is the rationale for proscriptions against prostitution, although those proscriptions also have a basis in prudery as well. Should women be unable to rent their vaginas in one context, but be free to do so in another (barring Caesarian surrogacy, of course)? I think not. Comments? Jones
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (10/29/90)
In article <9010261655.AA05142@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu>, morphy@cobalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > I believe that that to some extent is the rationale for proscriptions > against prostitution, although those proscriptions also have a basis > in prudery as well. > Should women be unable to rent their vaginas in one context, but be > free to do so in another (barring Caesarian surrogacy, of course)? I > think not. I think that a person's body belongs to them, whether the person is male or female. A question I would have for you is, is it ok for a female to have sex with any consenting partner? Assuming you answer yes, why does it become wrong when money is exchanged? How is having sex that much different than some other physical service? Isn't (for instance) being a cleaning person "selling" one's body? I believe that prostitution should be legal, for males and females.
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (10/30/90)
In article <9010261655.AA05142@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cobalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > > [You can't sell your freedom, i.e. you can't contract to be a slave] > >I feel that the same approach to maternal rights must be taken. The >idea that a woman can be treated purely as gestational equipment has a >long and dishonourable history. I simply do not agree that surrogacy >contracts should be enforceable. We already have laws which render >void the offering of children for adoption for financial gain. We >should immediately extend such laws to surrogacy to prevent the kinds >of chaos we are seeing now. Ok, so who was the mother in the Anna Johnson vs. the Calverts case? Anna Johnson, who gave birth to the baby, or Crispina Calvert who conceived it with her husband? Currently, men have the legal right to be sperm donors, even for money. They sign away all rights to any child that might result. Is there something so magical about reproduction that women cannot be considered competent to sign similar contracts? Is the maternal instinct so strong that women literally don't know their own minds when reproduction is concerned? Anyone over 21 is competent to sign a contract to buy a car or something. Noone is competent to sign themselves into slavery. Are there some things which men are competent to contract, but not women? -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (10/30/90)
Jones Murphy asks: (paraphrased) Should we allow women to rent their vaginas in one way but not in another? IMO, no. Prostitution is outlawed in this country for two reasons. First, the country was based on christian principles and allowing something like prostitution would be right out. Secondly, the U.S. government hasn't found a way to tax it yet. Some people are very against surrogate motherhood and feel that it goes against nature. This is again imposing others' arbitrary values on an action. So, I believe both should be allowed or disallowed. (Allowed). Mostly I would like to see our government become more consistent within itself. I wouldn't call this a strictly feminist point of view, because their are feminists that feminize [good word there] with thier morals and others that don't. I believe that morals should have very little to do with rights. But in some cases that is difficult. Andrea Gansley-Ortiz
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (10/30/90)
Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz >Prostitution is outlawed in this country for two reasons. >First, the country was based on christian principles and allowing >something like prostitution would be right out. Secondly, the U.S. >government hasn't found a way to tax it yet. Twice wrong. Prostitution is only illegal by state or county law, as it is legal in some counties in Nevada. And the best known (and longest legally operating) whorehouse in Nevada - the Mustang ranch - was closed recently for delinquent federal taxes. Prostitution was legalized / prohibited repeatedly in Europe between the 4th and 19th centuries. According to Robert Sanger (Margaret's father) in his "History of Prostitution" (c 189?) the motive for legalizing it was (repeatedly) so that it could be taxed. Figuring out how to tax it is *not* the problem. David Throop
robert@span.cs.unlv.edu (Robert Cray) (10/30/90)
In article <Ab=_YL200WB6IQ9WMe@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") writes: >Jones Murphy asks: >(paraphrased) Should we allow women to rent their vaginas in one way but >not in another? >IMO, no. Prostitution is outlawed in this country for two reasons. >First, the country was based on christian principles and allowing >something like prostitution would be right out. Secondly, the U.S. >government hasn't found a way to tax it yet. I'm not sure what christian values have to do with anything. I have nothing against christianity, but it should be part of our government only to the extent that it influences individual voters, and does not conflict with the constitution. Laws should not have to pass some sort of "christianity" test. Nevada has found a way to tax prostitution, you simply require a license, for which you charge a fee. The federal government taxes Nevada brothels as it would tax any other business. Why prostitution should be singled out for some special form of taxation is not clear to me.... The issue of surrogate mothers is a little trickier when there is a genetic bond between the surrogate mother, and one of the parents who contracted her. [Perhaps you mean between the surrogate mother and the child she has been contracted to bear? -- AMBAR] --robert -- robert@jimi.cs.unlv.edu
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (10/31/90)
In article <Ab=_YL200WB6IQ9WMe@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU >IMO, no. Prostitution is outlawed in this country for two reasons. >First, the country was based on christian principles and allowing >something like prostitution would be right out. Secondly, the U.S. >government hasn't found a way to tax it yet. Not true. Legal prostitutes in Nevada pay federal tax, and the IRS had no problem to foreclose a brothel that had not paid its taxes. I support the idea of legal prostitution. I think that prostitute should pay taxes and get *real* police protection against pimps and "un-satisfied" customers. (They can't get this protection now because prostitution is illegal.) [How about Nevada where it is legal? --CLT] COYOTE (a prostitutes' organization) expressed a similar position, but I don't think that most of the anti-prostitution liberals are going to listen to the people that they want to "defend"... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The case against pornography and the case against toleration of prostitution are central to fight against rape," -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (10/31/90)
In article <1777@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: > Ok, so who was the mother in the Anna Johnson vs. the Calverts case? > Anna Johnson, who gave birth to the baby, or Crispina Calvert who > conceived it with her husband? How about using the following standard: Since the birth mother is by definition present at the delivery, she can be determined unambiguously. She is noted on the child's birth certificate under "MOTHER". If she is in a legally binding marriage (common law or otherwise) her spouse is noted as "FATHER". If either of them later wish to deny this designation, they may use genetic tests to verify this. Even if they ARE the genetic parents, they may opt to surrender parental rights, but this gets into adoption law. I will also avoid for the moment the thorny issue of chasing down delinquent fathers. If a third party shows up with a contract saying that s/he has purchased the child in question, s/he is charged with attempting to purchase a human being in violation of anti-slavery laws. This standard might not be "genetically just", but it is hopefully less ambiguous and more enforcable than what we have now, and avoids the (in my opinion) dangerous precedent of allowing the purchase of people. After all, if a woman can agree in advance to sell her child, could her child not someday become collateral in a business transaction, ala Rumpelstiltskin and other grisly fairy tales? -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet UUNET!CORNELL!VAX5!W25Y UUCP "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn