Monty Adams

I've pointed this out several times. But I will say it one last time. Once we stop treating human bodies as sacrosanct, we make human life no longer sacrosanct. Our healthy bodies are inextricably tied to both our life and our unique identity. You cannot injure the body without injuring the life they give and the identity they play a part in forming. 

If the sanctity of human life is no longer accepted, and society stops treating life as the ultimate foundation for our moral system and instead treats it as a tradeable commodity, we forfeit the appeal to morality to justify the protection of lives as being unique and inviolate. · _{58 minutes ago}

Edited 52 minutes ago

Amy Schley

Societal changes -- as in middle class people can't live in homes with less than 1500 square feet without internet and smart phones and computers and every third meal being prepackaged or out to eat.

The people who live like a family in the 1950s can afford to work like a family in the 1950s. · _{June 6, 2013 at 12:10am}

Byron Horatio

A creative response.  But it was related.  I was not being facetious.  I'm asking how one can logically believe that banning an economic activity because it would be a "legal avenue to destroy lives" does not also apply to alcohol and tobacco.  Certainly alcohol is far more destructive in terms of wrecked homes and homicides than prostitution.   · _{2 hours ago}

Byron Horatio

For sake of clarity and consistency, I take it you are a Prohibitionist with respect to alcohol.  And you favor banning cigarettes too right?  · _{1 hour ago}

Franco

This kind of logic is why I stopped taking moralists seriously. They want the state to impose morals on everyone, making sure there are never any victims.   · _{3 minutes ago}