[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

Aren't laws made according to someone's morals?

Only to a point. Most laws are based on the concept of protecting ourselves from each other. We make a law against murder not on the general assumption that it's wrong, but to try to protect our own lives. Laws against theft are based on the concept of protecting our own property. Laws against prostitution are based on the idea that someone thinks it's wrong, or "immoral". That is a bad reason to create laws.

The thread (OP) is about prostitution, not politicians. I directed my responses accordingly.

You asked me if I wanted my children to be prostitutes. I replied with a specific case, but my point (which you apparently missed entirely) was that there are a lot of things I wouldn't want my children to be, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make laws against them.

A moral is a "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong".

Exactly. It's something you try to teach your children. It's proper behavior. It's respect for the other person. It's how you try to live your life. It's not something you dictate that others must do through law.

These are not my personal morals, but rather, I believe, reasonable assumptions.

Good, but again, reasonable assumptions are not the basis of lawmaking.

I don't know of any parent who would want their child to aspire to become a prostitute, hence my question.

I've already agreed with that. A part of my reaction, though, is that you said making it illegal would let your children know that you thought it was wrong. That's a bad reason to make laws.

Does that mean they're not out there? I'm not impying that, only that I don't know of any. I think it's reasonable to think that parents have their childrens' best interest in mind and I also believe that this includes not wanting their children to grow up and become prostitutes.

You keep coming back to that. I think we're agreed on that point. That is still not a reason to make something illegal.

The issue regarding "drinking age" should have been clearly seen as strictly addressing "making something illegal in order to discourage children" to which I even included Tchocky's specific comment.
What's up wit dat?

You asked a question in a public forum. That means anyone is free to answer it. You asked specifically "So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?", which attempts to put him on a moral hot seat, because if he says "yes" then he's agreeing with you after he said he disagreed, and if he says "no" then he's admitting to a moral basis that's inferior to yours. it was a loaded question from the start.

So do you believe that 21 should be the legal drinking age, because anything younger is "encouraging children"? Are countries (or states) with lower legal drinking ages morally inferior? I understand the point of "discouraging children", but you named a specific age and I question the point of that.

To your actual point: Do we set a legal minimum drinking age because we believe it's morally wrong for children to drink, or because there are serious physical dangers to still-developing bodies and brains that need to be avoided if possible?

Oh, you also didn't answer my question. In the very same post you told me we weren't talking about politicians you brought up this whole drinking thing out of the blue. Why keep telling me that I've changed the subject and then do it yourself in the very same breath?