The Great Sun Jester those who oppose euthanasia generally think that you don’t have a right to willingly kill yourself either, barring special circumstances, if that.
Wait, you’re bitching about Evil Captor linking to McNeil’s blog as a starting point for links to real researchers like Augustin, and as a counter point you link to Melissa Farley? The mind boggles. Independent of anyone’s personal views on sex work, Farley is a deliberately dishonest fanatic pretending to be a researcher. I personally don’t care for McNeil (her blog also contains a lot of libertarian dreck and anti-police rants), but she doesn’t pretend to be anything but a blogger.
As I’ve told you before, go read Augustin’s book before you attempt to engage anyone on this topic. Otherwise we’re just wasting time debunking nonsense.
Case in point.
Still completely, utterly, laughably untrue, and anyone could find that out with a few moment’s googling. Even Wikipedia, despite being enormously biased towards the prohibitionist viewpoint, doesn’t support your rewriting of history.
Earlier thread here on the Kutcher trafficking nonsense.
Okay, I was wrong in putting Sweden on the list of countries that first decriminalized and then re-criminalized prostitution. However, Norway and France did exactly that, and several other European countries are considering it. Plainly when European countries try complete decriminalization, it doesn’t go terribly well.
Thank you! I just heard the “Blisshrooms” episode. Very nice! It mentions new research, but nothing about decriminalization per se. Although, of course, the research itself might, perhaps, be one very, very early sign of future decriminalization.
Or is there more on potential decriminalization in the other two episodes?
Yeah I sometimes forget that. I guess the only way to debate that one is to clarify whether God needs us to legislate His will, or if he has the obedience thing covered with the afterlife sorting ceremony. Seems like Jesus may have said something along the lines of, “Just take care of your own soul and don’t meddle too much in other people’s business and everything will be fine.” But nobody ever really seems too concerned about that guy anymore.
Swap order on the first two and I’ll agree. And I’m not all that sure I would call it Hell in a hand basket. Lots of odd stuff in both Testaments – odder than what we’re talking about here.
Depending on your state and situation, you can already get close to assisted suicide. My living will is the standard “no heroics, its OK to withhold feeding, etc” which is basically my way of killing myself if I can’t kill myself - by telling those trained to give care not to act. Some states will let relatives make that call even when the patient hasn’t. Going from there to “I can’t stand the pain and there is no hope but I need some help” isn’t that far.
I know several people in group relationships who have looked at the entire SSM debate and wondered “When will we?” At least one case I know of, I agree that all the partners should have equal legal standing – at least IMHO. The problem they face is the perception of pedophilia some of the actions of fundamentalist religious groups bring to the table. I can look at four adults of similar ages being married. But a guy in his 60s with several wives in their teens? Even late teens? I need a few more years before that looks “right” to me.
No, you can’t. Do Not Resuscitate orders and refusal of extraordinary measures are nothing close to assisted suicide or euthanasia. They apply only if you’re in a coma or in the middle of a medical crisis, and that’s a very limited version of that situation. It doesn’t help if you’re experiencing a long, painful decline in your health.
Re: But a guy in his 60s with several wives in their teens? Even late teens?
If by ‘late teens’ you mean 18-19 year olds, a 60-year old has the legal and moral right to marry a 18-year old now, as long as he only marries one of them at a time. If you mean people below 18, we already have age-of-consent and minimum marriage age laws to deal with that.
I suspect that calls for legalizing polygamy are going to become more common in the future, especially if we get more immigration from African countries where polygamy is socially accepted.
The problem with this, as it relates to cults, is that these are often forced “marriages” and is merely the cult leader (and his inner circle) controlling the other cult members.
As mentioned above, we tried it and it didn’t work out well. I was a beneficiary of the age reduction, being the last generation in MI to get 18 drinking and not have it taken away. (I was also the first generation not to have to register for the draft. Lucky me. 1957 was a good year to be born!)
Nothing magic about 21, but there was magic about 18: it made it really easy for high school kids to get alcohol. As I remember vividly. If someone were to propose 20 I might be willing to consider that as a reasonable compromise.
We have to pick an age. Since at 21 you’re a legal adult in pretty much every way (I believe the only exception is using your parents’ health insurance, which is recent), we’d need an extraordinary reason to put it later than 21. Between 18 and 21 we have a number of gray areas, so it makes sense to put the limit somewhere in that range – but the upper end of it dramatically reduces not only alcohol related accidents, but alcohol-related accidents in kids below 18 (at least, it made a big difference at the time). That seems to be a pretty good reason. Whether it’s a good reason or not, it’s definitely a powerful political argument, and it won the day at the time despite the voting age being 18.
It won’t happen, and I doubt that it should happen.
I doubt we’ll see polygamy any time soon. There’s not a big enough minority interested in it, but more importantly, it would require a substantial revision of federal and state laws regarding estate law etc. Extending marriage to same-sex couples doesn’t require much in the way of law revisions.
In at least a few places, the legal age for buying cigarettes has been raised to 19 for this reason.
Learjeff I don’t see why. There are plenty of countries with legal polygamy right now, if we wanted we could copy their codes.
Oh come now. The right wingers are already obsessed that putting the Koran in the library means Sharia is here now. They’d get more ammo from this. The only good polygamy is Polygamy Porter.
Those countries’ statutory schemes don’t have to pass (US) constitutional muster. We could probably borrow some things, but it’s unlikely that we could do all or even most of what they do.
Re: They’d get more ammo from this. The only good polygamy is Polygamy Porter.
Polygamy isn’t particularly an Islamic thing. Many Christians and animists in Africa practice polygamy, and a lot of majority-Christian African countries allow it. I’ve read that polygamous African Christians often point to the biblical patriarchs as examples, and Martin Luther (for one) famously or infamously said that he couldn’t find explicit biblical evidence that polygamy was wrong. (Since Luther subscribed to ‘scripture alone’ as one of his guiding principles, that was a big deal for him).
(Some cultures also traditionally practiced polyandry, e.g. Tibetans and some tribal groups in India).
Learjeff Regarding the alcohol drinking age, I’m still not convinced. Plenty of other countries get by fine with a drinking age of 18 and stringent drinking-and-driving laws. Hopefully self driving cars should make the question moot anyway. 18 year olds are legal adults capable of making decisions about jobs, education, the military, sex and relationships, etc., and I think they should be allowed to make choices about alcohol too.
It doesn’t matter. If you say change laws to permit polygamy, people will think Sharia and Fox News heads will asplode.
But serious question: which countries currently and at the national level permit polygamy (e.g. no rural Utah), and use a secular or non-Islamic justification? And not along the lines of “this country is 20% Muslim. Let them have it” etc.
Among mostly Muslim countries, it looks like at least Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Tunisia prohibit it. I’ll presume that that’s also true in other secularized countries like BiH. And I’m sure there are some places where it is legal but <1% of people practice it.
Well, by definition, most people in polygamous societies don’t practice polygamy, at least in the the ‘one man, multiple wives’ form. the sex ratio is generally close to 1:1, except under special conditions (e.g. Massive warfare) so polygyny is usually an aspiration, not the norm. Islam of course emerged under warfare conditions, which may be part of why Muhammad allowed it (unless you’re Muslim and believe he was divinely inspired).
It isn’t only Muslim countries in Africa which permit polygyny, most majority Christian countries do so as well.
Paraguay apparently had a 10:1 sex ratio at the end of the War of the Triple Alliance, must have been a great place to be a guy.