The Overlap Between Prostitution & Abortion Arguments on Legalization - Aara

While reading through Satz’s “Markets in Women’s Sexual Labor,” her arguments for legalized and regulated prostitution reminded me of a few arguments for legalizing abortion. 

Before I start, I wanted to provide a quick counter-argument to the legalization of prostitution from an economic lens (devil’s advocate!). From pure economic supply and demand laws, I’d be inclined to see that the legalization of prostitution would lead to an increase in demand for it. A main reason that comes to mind when it comes to men not wanting to buy sex is that the demand would be lower in a non-legalized country; people are less likely to want to go through the qualms and concerns of engaging with the black market of selling sex. Thus, an increase in demand would have to be met with an increase in supply, perhaps creating an influx of more vulnerable women who do not want to engage in the profession. 

Back to the overlay, women’s bodies have been a main point of contention in both the moral and political world, both often being reflected in one another. As Satz points out, current prohibition policies of prostitution in the US “...arguably exacerbate the factors in virtue of which prostitution is wrong,” (151) with an emphasis on prostitution being viewed as wrong through a moral lens. The negative image of prostitution mostly reflects negative stereotypes of women, not so much pimps or the large proportion of men buying sex. This is both reflected in the fact that it is women, not the buyers of sex or pimps, who often get implicated in the industry as well as a negative stereotype surrounding women and their bodies. 

Satz points out that in the US, “...women are disproportionately punished for engaging in commercial sex” (151). Moreover, Satz’s main point in this chapter is that prostitution is wrong because it promotes “....unequal relationships between men and women, gender hierarchy, and exclusion,” (142) the victims of this scenario being women. 

Similarly, the political debate about abortion often has an underlying issue of individuals wanting to have moral control over a woman's body. As Satz points out, a woman’s body can often be reduced to her ability, or inability to reproduce. It takes two individuals to reproduce a baby, but the implications and consequences of that action often fall on the mother. Many people do have more concern over the life of a fetus and use that as a moral backing. However, many politicians who support this view do not also draw attention to a child’s life after, such as the foster care or orphanage system. If there is only care about an individual’s life before birth and after, I question how much concern is entirely about the fetus (this is not empirical but in some cases about this argument). 

Satz points to three main points about how the current prohibition of prostitution negatively affects women and gender stereotypes; this can be similarly applied to abortion. 

First, she is concerned about the vulnerability of women. Without legal protection, prostitutes do not have a larger form of stable protection, having to rely on unreliable pimps and contracts. This often has an even larger negative impact “...for women on the lowest rungs of prostitution” (151). Similarly, a ban on abortions often leaves women vulnerable, especially women who do not have either economic or social support to go through with a pregnancy. 

Second, “...women are disproportionately punished for engaging in commercial sex” (151). Legally, prostitutes face charges at higher rates than the buyers of sex and pimps. This reinforces negative stereotypes against prostitutes, not the people engaging and supporting this business. Vulnerable women who are often doing this against their will face higher discrimination than individuals continually engaging and reinforcing an exploitative industry. Women who go through abortions are condemned for their actions. Vasectomies exist but are not as used to hold men responsible for the reproductive process. In Alabama, both rape and performing an abortion are regarded as a class A felony. The state’s laws banning abortion do not protect women in cases of rape or incest, attaching responsibility completely to them.

Lastly,  Satz notes that “Banning prostitution would not by itself, does not, eliminate it” (151). Criminalizing prostitution instead thrives in the black market, making it even more unsafe for women. The same can be said about abortion. Criminalizing abortion does not eliminate it, but forces women to go through harmful and strenuous means to gain access to it. Women do not want abortions “just because,” but often see it as a necessity given their situation. Abortion becomes unsafe and inaccessible, especially for women in the “lower rungs,” who are not able to afford to go across state borders to access help. 

Satz’s analysis asks us a question of how much our moral perceptions of women and their functions operate on a greater political scale. It is important to consider the safety of women and the broader want to control (or think individuals should have control) over a woman’s body, sometimes putting personal views aside. Criminalizing these actions can often create a lack of autonomy over one’s body.