Yes, reproductive issues get simplified down to this point a lot. It's about as reductive as the (technically true) assertion that most men are superfluous from a survival-of-the-species standpoint and therefore their deaths and suffering don't really matter that much because we don't actually need every male anyway. Just because someone can be commodified doesn't mean that they should be, and it doesn't mean that absolute commodification of every interaction is a great end-point for society! We restrict organ donation despite organs being, like, technically a commodity, because the social externalities become really dark really fast, check: China.
Just because
you don't want to commodify something, that isn't grounds to restrict it. I refer you to the greater harms caused by all other forms of prohibition, including escalation of crimes to ensure that the base level criminality is not discovered, like the mob murdering witnesses to Prohibition-Era alcohol shipments.
China is an authoritarian state, where the gov't sincerely believes that they're entitled to force people to do whatever the fuck the gov't wants, so it's not anything like a 1:1 for western countries, which has been the focus of the discussion, to the extent that at least one person has noted that while they do feel for women oppressed in MENA/etc., they know that they can have limited influence there, and focus themselves in their own locale.
Organ donation is also highly regulated in all western nations, so the Chinese organ markets are hardly a great comparison.
Surrogacy is always a luxury. Kim K has had two children via surrogates. Children are a luxury. We do not need children. The third world already makes more than enough. Should it be legal to have the ability to contractually force someone to bear a child just so a rich lady can keep her vag tight? Nobody is legally entitled to have their genes passed down. That's never been the case, and it shouldn't be in the future.
A Kardashian isn't exactly a representative example of the average person that needs access to surrogacy. The relative privation of millions of babies elsewhere is entirely irrelevant to the case of a western couple that wants to have a child of their own, and has arranged surrogacy because they aren't capable of it. If you're going to make that argument, provide evidence that the majority of women seeking surrogacy in western countries (which IS the context of this thread) are doing so "because they want to keep their vag tight", and not because they don't have something that prevents her from having a healthy pregnancy.
This forum is mostly for gossip and lols so I don't know what you're expecting tbh but okay here goes: some behaviours generate significant social externalities. Externalities that affect everyone. Opposition to sex work includes opposition to men who do it. It's not inherently gendered except for the risk of pregnancy. Prostitution is a profession that generates significant social externalities. Happy normal men and women overwhelmingly do not choose to do sex work. Sex, for humans, has emotional and relational factors that make sucking dicks for 12 hours a day very different from stacking rocks for 12 hours a day even if one of them makes your arms more tired. Legalizing prostitution would technically allow men and women more autonomy, but it also steeply increases the demand curve for hooking (ref: Amsterdam and Germany). Hooking is a really dirty and dangerous job because men that buy hookers are mostly not that normal, plus STDs etc. Increasing demand for hookers does not increase the supply of happy hookers - normal men and women don't become any more eager to take it up the butt for $ - and it leads to hookers making less money individually, because now they can't even charge their danger pay for the legal risk. Nobody is going to willingly hook for less money. So hookers have to be created by force. This spreads the basic misery of the job out over an even bigger body of hookers, who now include a lot of Romanian and Vietnamese girls who don't even speak their john's language and don't understand that the cops would help them. The net result is a larger negative social externality, not less. I guess the johns are happy but they could have just jerked off for the same result. It's not really about sexual autonomy but about labour autonomy. Nobody is telling these women not to fuck who they want. It's just that money can't be part of it.
Legal brothels under the Nordic Model require the sex workers use condoms, and I've already mentioned that I've spoken to East Germans about East German brothels, where the majority of women are trafficked, because the local women that might have been willing to engage in sex work wanted to be paid better than women kidnapped by criminal syndicates. Imagine my shock, discovering that criminal syndicates that are already involved in massive drug, contraband, and weapon trafficking operations might also be involved in human and sex trafficking!
In the US, such syndicates can be prosecuted under RICO statues, and the human trafficking occurring at the US/Mexico border is under those kinds of investigations, among others. Germany has also passed laws mandating workplace inspections, mandatory condom use, banned gang-bangs and flat-rate brothels, sets minimum standards for hygiene and safety, and gives sex workers access to gov't funded health checkups.
And "social externalities" doesn't mean anything, when you aren't presenting anything that proves that prohibition of sex work makes women safer than the legalization of sex work. You haven't shown anything that indicates that legalization will have women beating down the doors of brothels, depressing the going rates, and impoverishing the existing sex workers.
You also sound, exactly like every other anti-sex-work person in the thread, exactly like the religious right, demanding that women be protected from their own sexual and reproductive agency, except when it aligns with your interests, so I'm going to repeat myself - Her body, Her choice.
PS - "Labour autonomy" can and does include "sexual autonomy", if you're treating a woman as a competent agent, in her own right.
Yes, both are extremely exploitative industries; radical feminism is a small extension of Marxism, so of course most of us will have sympathy for the working class.
When a miner dies of blacklung, it's considered a failure of the industry, and things are changed to become safer.
When a prostitute dies, it's considered the cost of business. Nobody considers it out of the ordinary or changes anything.
Call this optimistic, but I'm going to bet that if Robert Pickton had been forced to go to regulated, legal brothels, he wouldn't have been nearly as able to coax women to his farm, where he immediately murdered them and fed them to his pigs. In fact, being forced to rely entirely on a smaller pool of streetwalkers would have likely brought vastly more attention to his actions, much faster.
Also, in construction, they budget in the lost hours associated with injuries, illnesses, and deaths, for all bids. They simply don't leave it out in the open, and euphemize it. I'd bet it happens in crab fishing, and all sorts of other, predominantly male, high-risk professions.
