Feed on
Posts
Comments

maxresdefault

 

Prostitution has been around for the past thousands of years. It is cross-cultural and has even been referenced in the bible. Sex workers has been one of the oldest forms of employment, and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. With today’s demands of sex workers, there have been rises in sex trafficking, STI’s, and violence. With that being said, should prostitution be legalized?There are proponents who believe yes, prostitution should be a legal activity. There are also those who oppose the idea of making prostitution legal. Researchers like Dr. Carrasquillo argue that prostitution has been around for many civilizations and leading to the road of legality will ultimately help regulate and lower the violence dealing with sex work. On the other hand, critics like Dr. MacTaggart claim that the legalization in sex work will only increase the demand for workers leading to abuse and violence.

One of the main arguments against prostitution becoming legal is that it would ultimately lead to an increased risk of human sex trafficking. Imagine the demand when sex with prostitutes would become legal. According to the Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Melissa Farley states that an estimated 2.5 million people are being coerced into human trafficking (Farley). Farley states that with sex work becoming legal, this would only dramatically increase (Farley). A possible threat in legalizing prostitution could be that of human trafficking. Another threat for having prostitution becoming legalized, would be that there will likely be an increase in violence and abuse from sex workers in the industry. Mactaggart states that in her research, violence in areas of nevada where sex work is legal, high levels of abuse and violence are prevalent (Mactaggart). The researcher says that the levels of violence increased at a 15% from survey reports in Nevada. Mactaggart also looks internationally to see if these occurrences of violence are happening. It was found that in Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal, levels of abuse are still high when looking at data covering female workers and their clients (Mactaggart).

 

When looking at the legalization of sex work, Many feel that legalizing sex work would lead to a better regulation and control over many of the debated problems. A common threat are STI’s. A current study on the statistics of STI’s transmitted through sex work is 20% above regular or acceptable sex practices (Davidson). Researcher, Julia Davidson states in her article that by making sex work legal in the United States, the regulation on public health will be at a greater advantage, and sexually transmitted infections will decrease (Davidson). Although the problem of STI’s are always going to be present with acts of sex, by having a regulation and some form of management through the legalization will definitely help out the problem. Another reason many are in favor of legalization, is because researchers, such as Andrew Horowitz, believe that crime levels will decrease with the government formally regulating the activity. Horowitz states that from the legalization, organizers who normally would illegally manage sex workers (pimps, drug owners) would not have as much control (Horowitz).

 

From both articles, there were both weaknesses and strengths. For the opposing side who believed prostitution should remain illegal- both articles failed to find a solution. The two articles did really well at finding evidence against the benefits of legalization, but neither of the pieces seemed to offer a solution. There was a bunch of negative connotations, but nothing to build from that. For the side that was in favor of legalizing sex work- it did really well providing reasons to counteract traditional pieces against their ideas. The two articles did seem a bit too optimistic because they stated so much would change after the legalization. The world still faces the two dilemmas of human trafficking as well as the spreading of STIs. In my opinion, I would probably not choose to legalize prostitution. Instead, I would try to find alternatives and regulations to stop the problems that are affecting sex workers (human trafficking, violence, and STI’s). Both sides lacked certain things, so I would hope both sides would work together to come up with a comparable solution.

Farmer, A., & Horowitz, A. W. (2013). Prostitutes, Pimps, and Brothels: Intermediaries, Information, and Market Structure in Prostitution Markets. Southern Economic Journal, 79(3), 513-528. doi:10.4284/0038-4038-2011.153

Balboni, D. S. (2007). But I Thought This Was Sin City!: Nevada’s Restrictions on Advertisements for Legal Brothel Services. Nevada Law Journal, 7548.

Turley, J. (2014, July 18). Report: Legalization of Prostitution In Rhode Island Led To Improvements of Both Public Health and Public Safety.

Murphy, R. E. (1987). A QUESTION OF PROCUREMENT: NOT PROSTITUTION. WORKING WOMEN: THE SUBTERRANEAN WORLD OF STREET PROSTITUTION. By Arlene Carmen and Howard Moody. Columbia Law Review, 871075.

Carrasquillo, T. (2014). UNDERSTANDING PROSTITUTION AND THE NEED FOR REFORM. Touro Law Review, 30(3), 697-721.

 

Photo Illustration of Genetic Selection of Sex

Sex selection is the practice of using medical techniques to choose the sex of offspring (ACOG). Once, this was merely a futuristic possibility of a dystopian novel. With today’s offerings of technology, sex selection has become very much a reality for expecting couples. Now that we have this technology, the ability to change the genetic makeup on an individual, we must ask ourselves if this is ethical. Should we have this right, and what is a valid reason to do so? As of now, both sides provide very compelling arguments as to whether or not parents should have this right. Should parents have control over their child’s DNA to prevent genetic disorders, or is selecting a certain sex over another creating an imbalance to the population’s sex ratio? Researchers and institutions such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argue that sex selection could be beneficial in making healthy individuals, while scientists like Rothman believe there are lasting consequences of controlling the sex of another human.

The first proponent I found for sex selection was the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ethical article entitled, “Sex Selection” (ACOG). Written collectively by the committee of ethics, The ACOG goes into detail about the use of genetically modifying the sex of an unborn baby. The ACOG listed one of the most common proponents for using this method. Many couples want to be cautious when having children if they have or are a carrier for a genetic disorder. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that by having the opportunity to take away certain risk factors, families could have children without the chance of the child inheriting a disorder. In research they conducted, selecting the gender may be beneficial for families carrying the hemophilia disease—if a mother is a carrier, chances are the son will be 50% more likely to be born with this condition (ACOG). Another claim the article makes is that some genetic disorders do not have an exact place of origin, and can develop at randomized staged of the pregnancy affecting the embryo (ACOG). The safest way for parents to make sure their child won’t have a certain disorder, would be to determine the sex of their child first.

The second proponent for parents having the right to select the sex of their child comes from researchers, De Wert G and Dondorp W. The scientist’s article, “Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections” analyze the existing arguments against sex selection. The writers claim that many of the arguments are inconclusive and believe that the rules of sex selection should be reconsidered. Wert and Dondorp state that the current claims about sex selection are too broad and do not represent an accurate portrayal of the selecting process (Wert, Dondorp) The researchers break down and analyze each counter argument for the fight against sex selection and found that the sex selection process is efficient and proven highly safe (Wert, Dondorp). The article also counteracts the argument that sex selection is unnatural. According to the literature, many medical professionals argue that it is unnatural in its whole entirety, but bring to light the contradiction—what about when it is for medical reasons solely? Finally, the article goes into detail counteracting the claim that sex selection is sexist. The writers state how it could be sexist, and if people were to stop using sex selection over the fear of having a certain sex, isn’t that in itself some form of sexism (Wert, Dondorp).

While there have compelling arguments from the side in favor of sex selection, there have also been a large number of researchers against sex selection.  The first article I found came from researcher Therese Hesketh who wrote the article, “Selecting sex: The effect of preferring sons.” Hesketh’s article focuses on the societal aspect of sex selection and why it is not the best method for today’s society. The writer states that in today’s current living, there is an imbalance of the sexes, with there being a drastically larger number of males (Hesketh). Hesketh goes on to argue that there is a social injustice of sexism created when ever being involved in sex selection (Hesketh). The researcher points out that many families overlook the medical advancements of sex selection and rather choose a male over female for personal reasons—whether it be to balance out a family, maintain a relationship between the parents, or to make the family more happy overall (Hesketh). Another major point of this article is that the high male birth rate has lasting effects on the males later in life. With fewer females, Hesketh states that men will grow up to be lonely, as there won’t be as many females.

Another article that is against Sex Selection is Michelle Martel’s article, “Sexual selection and sex differences in the prevalence of childhood externalizing and adolescent internalizing disorders.” Martel claims that an important thing for people to understand is that gender and sex are two completely different things entirely. A major that this article focuses on is the misunderstanding that parents go through when messing with the genes of their child. A couple might want a girl when the woman is showing signs of being pregnant with a boy. By choosing a different sex that isn’t as dominantly present already, it may lead to hormonal disorders where there is an unequal balance of testosterone in the female (Martel). Another reason Martel is against selecting the sex of a child is that it isn’t natural and part of the biological design that set the baby into motion at the beginning. The researcher questions this procedure and goes onto to ask what is the stopping point if they allow parents to select the sex of their baby?

The idea of selecting the outcome of your child’s sex is both terrifying and extraordinary to so many people. The idea of possibly eradicating certain genetic disorders is one giant step for science, but is that same idea going into moral and ethical murky waters? Both sides provided compelling arguments. Firstly, the proponents of this idea showed a layout of not only the benefits of sex selection, but featured each of it’s counterarguments.  This side did a great job of bringing it’s own evidence in the positives of sex selection (genetic disorders, cultural standpoints) but also built up credibility by not being afraid to highlight the main points of the opponents (unnatural, sexism). The researchers on the proponents side also remained unbiased when writing the article and that had great impacts to the reader and others looking to learn more about both the pros and cons of sex selection.The side that went against the process of selection did also a really good job of proving their points. There were times when I agreed because the evidence and rhetoric with which it was written in, was very persuasive. This side failed to provide material from the contrasting side though. At times, the articles against sex selection seemed very biased and were strongly leaning towards one side of opinionated beliefs.

After looking more at the articles, I started out believing that the process of selecting sex resembled something of a science fiction dystopian novel, but after hearing the arguments for the process I began to agree. I think that the benefits of this process outweigh the fears of the counterarguments. It’s a struggle of going towards the advancement of science vs remaining constant because of the current morals and ideology that governs today. I would ultimatlely have to side with the proponents because their arguments seemed more credible for the fact that they were aware and included points from their opposites.

 

References:

De Wert, G., & Dondorp, W. (2010). Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn, 2(4), 267–277.

Hesketh, T. (2011). Selecting sex: The effect of preferring sons. Early Human Development, 87(Selected Proceedings of the Neonatal Update 2011), 759-761. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.08.016

Martel, M. M. (2013). Sexual selection and sex differences in the prevalence of childhood externalizing and adolescent internalizing disorders. Psychological Bulletin139(6), 1221-1259. doi:10.1037/a0032247

Women’s Healthcare Physicians. (2007, February 1). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Sex-Selection

kinsey-scale

A question that is still debated in today’s community is whether or not sexual orientation is biologically based.Evidently, there are two strong stances regarding the topic. First, there is a side that claims orientation is a biological matter that is simply encoded in one’s DNA– saying yes, people are “born gay.” Two articles written by Brian A. Gladue, Stanton L.Jones, and  Alex W. Kivee will dive deeper into the evidence regarding sexual orientation being of biological descent. The protesting side of this topic claims the opposite– sexual orientation is a product of environmental influences and social behaviors. Believers of this proposed side, comprised of Karen Harbeck, Ritch C. Savin-Williams, and Lisa M. Diamond, have collected pushing their proposed side.

In the first article supporting sexual orientation as a biological factor, Brian A. Gladue presents his research in the works entitled, The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation. Glaude provides information showing that there are in fact, multiple biological factors that contribute to the orientation of a person. The article is broken down by different biological factors and how each factor directly correlates to the ultimate attraction (or lack of) to another individual. Genetics, hormonal, neuroendocrine, neuroanatomical, and neuropsychological are the different categories that Glaude uses to differentiate certain factors in biology that go into the theory of sexual orientation. The researcher also provides tables and further research splitting the findings by sex, orientation, and different brain regions stimulated. In conclusion to the research, Brian Glaude states that not every one is the same and follows a set “orientation path”, but that genetics is deeply rooted to the orientation of an individual– finding certain areas in the brain differ between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.

The second academic piece, Scientific Research, Homosexuality, and the Church’s Moral Debate: An Update, are from researchers, Stanton L.Jones and Alex W. Kivee. The researchers of Wheaton College explain that biological factors such as behavioral genetics are key in determining a person’s orientational preference. Jones and Kivee use tables primarily to display results indicating that activity of the functions of the brain differ by individuals who are either heterosexual or homosexual. An interesting aspect to this research is that the scientists go into detail about their research dealing with genetic scanning and brain functions. The researchers are essentially collecting data and seeing if it correlates on a larger scale. Most of the analytical and data utilized by this article have been that of infants and brain functions of young children, with a strong data relating towards twins, fraternal not identical. Jones and Alex ultimately found that they encountered a lot of inconsistencies within their studies and that some homosexual individuals showed no significant difference from their heterosexual counterparts.

On the opposing side of the sexual orientation debate, The work,Contemporary Theories of Sexual Orientation written by Karen Harbeck, goes into the topic of sexual orientation and how environmental influences are what really shape sexual orientation. Harbeck writes that although there are some compelling arguments stating biological origin, social behaviors and societal norms strongly outweigh any pre-programmed genetics. The researcher goes into psychoanalytic theories dating back to Freud , as to how learned behaviors acquired at an early age only enhanced as an individual got older. Harbeck focuses her study on homosexual men, as there is more studies equated with the men. Harbeck goes into cultural data and gender roles, stating that gender roles correlate into sexual orientation.

Another finding regarding sexual orientation as an environmental originator, comes from researchers Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Lisa M. Diamond. Their work, Sexual Orientation as a Developmental Context for Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: Biological Perspectives, dives into the issues of  label phenomena and imprinting, The scientists go into the topics of environmental impacts on orientation and how our society has an urge to create paranoia revolved around constant labeling and stereotypes. According to Williams and Diamond, self labeling is a social norm that instinctively happens when the individual is at the age of adolescence or even younger– in a struggle to find their sense of identity. Another aspect of this article is that it explains that by being recognized amongst peers in a certain way, can alter your own perception of yourself at an early age– including sexual orientation.

The articles pertaining to the side of sexual orientation being a product of biological factors had very strong data backing up most of the work being said, In the article,  The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation, the writer does a phenomenal job providing definitions, tables, and coherent statistics to readers. The other advancement of this academic piece, is that the writer refrained from any sort of bias while writing this piece. It was third-person formatted so that the data was presented without any motives sensed. The second article was just as analytical as the first piece, but where the first article had more academic writing– the second article displayed more statistical data. Most of the data was from toddlers or infants in regards to the data pool, so a possible limitation could have been that the data was not clearly representative of all individuals. All of the writers seemed credible and trustworthy in their credentials. Collectively, the side providing evidence for biological origins had clear, compelling arguments.

A major Critique for the side of environmental origins would have to be a lack of concrete data. Where the biological side had a great data representation for their side, the environmental side presented the research as “what if’s.” The concepts were interesting and compelling, but lacked concrete data and came across as more philosophical than scientific– which hurt some of the credibility when reading the article. What the two articles did really well on was that both pieces of work incorporated biological data from the opposing side. That was a good move for the writers, as they were able to build up their opponent and then counteract whatever data they incorporated.

After looking into both sides, the side that seems most compelling and logical is the theory that sexual orientation is biologically based. Both arguments for that side were more than credible with the data included and information laid out. The opposing side had an interesting claim, but there wasn’t enough supported data. The data ultimately outweighed the scenarios of the environmental theory. I have to choose the side of biology.

 

References

Gladue, B. A. (1994). The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation. Current Directions In Psychological Science     (Wiley-Blackwell), 3(5), 150-154. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770648

Jones, S. L., & Kwee, A. W. (2005). Scientific Research, Homosexuality, and the Church’s Moral Debate: An Update. Journal Of Psychology & Christianity, 24(4), 304-316.

Anderson, J. (2011). Conservative Christianity, the Global South and the Battle over Sexual Orientation. Third World Quarterly, 32(9), 1589-1605. doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.618648

Bartoli, E., & Gillem, A. R. (2008). Continuing to Depolarize the Debate on Sexual Orientation and Religion: Identity and the Therapeutic Process. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 39(2), 202-209. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.202

Harbeck, K. M. (2009). Contemporary Theories of Sexual Orientation. Research Starters Sociology (Online Edition),

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (1997). Sexual orientation as a developmental context for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Biological perspectives. In N. L. Segal, G. E. Weisfeld, C. C. Weisfeld, N. L. Segal, G. E. Weisfeld, C. C. Weisfeld (Eds.) , Uniting psychology and biology: Integrative perspectives on human development (pp. 217-238). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10242-005

 

Skip to toolbar