The tale of Robin Hood and the way he is portrayed as a hero in today's society is ridiculous. You demonize the rich, simply because they are rich and you glorify the poor because they are poor. You will hate another man because of his success and all of his positive attributes yet you love the poor because of their failures and faults. What kind of sense does that make?

The only way society has made the story even somewhat acceptable by making the rich appear so evil and villainous that the theft is morally justifiable. Even if that is truly what happened, people don't remember it as a story of self-defense or justice, they remember it as the "guy who stole from the rich and gave to the poor". And on that premise, the story and the main character, are evil.

use nuclear weapons to decrease the global population by 95 %.

A woman who chooses to turn tricks for a living regardless of circumstance is causing their own embarrassment. If prostitution was legal, than I would suggest that any patron of these services would insist on a contract to prevent any false allegations against them. That being said, what do you suppose its like for a woman nowadays who may be in that "profession" who happens to undergo a fair amount of abuse or rape for that matter. In order to prosecute the offender she would have to admit to breaking the law herself, which I'm sure leads to many cases not being filed. In essence the so-called crime of prostitution is a victimless crime. It is conducted by the mutual understanding and agreement of two consenting adults. Keeping prostitution illegal just creates more criminal in a system of overpopulated prisons where the REAL offenders need to be kept.

In the circumstance regarding forced prostitution, I would say that is not prostitution at all but rape. If a woman has a drug habit and she whores herself to get her fix than she is still a consenting adult, just for horrible reasons.

Also, just because it may be legal to do something, you are by no means compelled to do it. I find the business just as ugly as you do, but I don't believe the government should be able to dictate it.

The question I'm posing is not exclusive to just invasion or occupation. I'm simply asking if nations controlled by oppressive governments should be considered sovereign. Although military action (invasion/occupation) and economic action (embargoes and tariffs) can be included (I encourage that aspect of argument), I just want to know how people feel on the matter. Do we grant these nations the same respect as we do with free nations? Should our governments moral obligation stop at its' own citizens? If so, what do we do when our citizens' best interest conflicts with the "sovereignty" of these nations? I have my own position on the matter, I want to know what yours is.

First off I agree with davidh. The issue in question is revolving around the basic, albeit incorrect assumption that stem cell research is solely contributed to by aborted fetuses. However, for the sake of pretend and irrelevant argument I will take the position of in favor of all 3 choices with an emphasis on option C.

The question of should or should we not allow mothers to be able to sell their fetus for scientific research is really asking if it should be legal or not. Since legality obviously implies what the government's position is regarding this personal choice, I must choose that it be legal. The government should have no say in how I conduct my life, how I keep my home, or what I do with my body as long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.

Now you may be thinking that I am contradicting my own logic regarding what many believe as a fetus' right to life. I am here to tell you that a contradiction of rights cannot exist. You cannot claim that you have the right to your own body and that a fetus has a right to life because when these two things come into conflict they cant both be right, one of your premises are wrong. One right cannot supersede another, otherwise they would be privileges. I cannot claim a right to rob you while you have a right to life, liberty and property. Rights are universal truths among beings of volitional consciousness, since beings of volitional consciousness (i.e. humans) are the only ones capable of rational thought and a system of morality. Since a fetus is a"potential human", not capable of surviving outside of it's parasitic state, it cannot have rights or hold a mortgage over the life of another.

That being said, if I was a woman, would I ever get an abortion let alone start a business of selling fetuses, no. But that's my personal choice. I personally believe that there are much better alternatives. But I am not willing to sacrifice my personal liberties nor limit the liberties of another because of my opinion on the matter. Now for those of you who tend to quote scripture or are simply religious, you may have your arms up in anger at these statements. Let me just say that since your faith or belief on the matter of when does life begin, god and the like has yet to be proven via a means of empirical evidence, your position is merely an opinion.

Assuming that selling aborted fetuses for research was legal, I'd be more concerned about the potential health impacts on an individual after repetitive procedures. I also believe that if clinics simply declared the procedure "free" if the mother wanted to sell the fetus for research and therefore providing no profit for the mother would prevent any attempt of making a "business" of getting knocked up as well as providing incentives for putting other aborted fetuses to good use that would have other-wise been discarded. That is just my opinion and it is something that would have to be decided by the providing clinic because government regulation is just another form of coercion that I'm not in favor of.