Difference between Commercial Sex Work and performing Abortions for compensation

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
CanadaFan
Difference between Commercial Sex Work and performing Abortions for compensation

All,

I am curious from a feminist perspective what is the difference between criminalizing sexual activity between consenting adults where there is an exchange of financial compensation and criminalizing the performing of abortions where a doctor or medical professional also receives some type of financial compensation.

I will note as I understand that groups like Feminists for Life take the position that they are both one and the same. Curious what people like "Pondering" think of this juxtaposition?

 

voice of the damned

I am curious from a feminist perspective what is the difference between criminalizing sexual activity between consenting adults where there is an exchange of financial compensation and criminalizing the performing of abortions where a doctor or medical professional also receives some type of financial compensation.

Well, just for starters, it is not normally assumed that a doctor is under any sort of economic coercion when he takes fees to perform a service. In fact, we tend to see doctors as one of the lucky people in the economic pecking order.

Whereas, rightly or wrongly, there does tend to be an assumption that women who enter the sex-trade are doing so as something close to a last resort, ie. it is really not something that they would want to do if they had a wider range of options to make money. Not sure I agree that's true in every single case, nor that, even if true, it would justify outlawing the choice. But, I think that's what most people who are pro-choice on abortion, but abolitionist on prostitution, would tell you.

CanadaFan

Wouldn't the more correct analogy be the provincial government or the woman patient who actually "purchases" the services of the doctor in the context of a Nordic model analogy. From the standpoint of anti-abortion activists they would argue that the woman patients or public health system do not have an economic last resort to pay for abortion anymore the men have an economic last resort to pay for sex.

I am just going to throw out a prediction that the position of being pro-choice on abortion but abolitionist on prostitution will become unsustainable in time. Those with this view will either become anti choice and abolitionist or pro choice and pro decriminalization.

voice of the damned

Well, I thought that since, with abortion and prostitution, it's the doctor and the prostitute who are each getting paid in the respective situations, that was your intended comparison, ie. let's compare the recepients of the economic benefit, and if one(the doctor) isn't regarded as exploited, the other(ie. the sex worker) shouldn't be either. As you wrote:

where a doctor or medical professional also receives some type of financial compensation.

But, if I understand your last post correctly, you want to compare men who pay for sex with women who pay for abortions?

 

CanadaFan

I guess yes, in a Nordic model Bill C-36 way of viewing things. 

I have to add a cavaet that many but by no means all sex workers don't see themselves as exploited and in fact are basically providing similar "health" related services as doctors, therapists, etc. which of course makes this discussion even more complex.

 

 

 

voice of the damned

CanadaFan wrote:

I guess yes, in a Nordic model Bill C-36 way of viewing things. 

I have to add a cavaet that many but by no means all sex workers don't see themselves as exploited and in fact are basically providing similar "health" related services as doctors, therapists, etc. which of course makes this discussion even more complex.

 

 

 

Well, I don't think men who pay for sex are being exploited in any meaningful way, even under the Nordic model.

I think the logic of pro-choice is that laws against abortion restrict what a woman can do with her own body, and should therefore be abolished.

In regards to sex-work, both of the feminist sides in the debate are saying that, under criminalization, women are somehow having their autonomy violated, albeit in different ways...

-the pro-legalization camp say that women are being prevented from earning a living with their bodies in a manner of their choosing.

-OTOH the abolition camp says that sex-workers are women who have been economically coerced into doing work that they would otherwise not choose to do.

Neither of the "vicitms"(as defined by the respective camps) in these two scenarios is really comparable to men who pay for sex, since those men are not a) being sent to prison for trying to earn a living, or b) experiencing economic pressure that compels them to pay for sex.

At most(in terms of being sympathetic victims) men who pay for sex are comparable to people who used to smoke weed back before legalization: maybe the laws WERE an unfair restriction on their freedom, but it was still possible for them NOT to continue on that course of action without suffering major material harm and/or loss of freedom.

Pondering

I was just alerted to this thread, (thank-you) I no longer post in this forum so I can't answer here.