The only reason to make prostitution a crime is if you think prostitutes themselves are committing evil. That is 100% a religious position with no rational support.
This seems like a pretty outrageous claim. It seems obvious that:
1) There are moral hazards surrounding prostitution
2) The legal status of prostitution has a negative effect on the number of people participating in it.
So while legalizing prostitution certainly could (and anecdotally would) negate some of the hazards, to say that it would negate all of them seems foolish, or at the very least extremely poorly reasoned.
For instance: we don't allow people to work for less than minimum wage. We have things like OSHA which set minimum safe working requirements for dangerous jobs, etc.
You may claim "yes, that's why we want sex-work regulated".
Sex work already is regulated. Pornography is legal, stripping is legal, "cam" work is legal, burlesque is legal, etc. etc.
The classic example is: suppose a drug addict who has a moral opposition to selling their body for sex, but is being coerced into doing so by their drug addiction. We have protective regulations around that which strongly disincentive it.
Selling penetrative sex for money is where we as a society have drawn a line and said "everything up to this point is okay."
Just like we drawn a line for dangerous working conditions and said "everything up to this point is okay". We're not saying that there are no risks to dangerous physical work (sex work included), we're saying that anything beyond the line is intolerable.
--
Just to be clear: I'm not making some claim that strongly supports any side of this argument. I'm just annoyed by the claim that there is no discussion to be had here, and that the only reason that prostitution is illegal in most of the US is "Christians".
First off, that is an extremely broad moral hazard and one that applies to pretty much all types of employment and not just prostitution.
Secondly, making prostition legal allows an organiztion like OSHA to set (and more importantly, enforce) safe working requirements. This is precisely and example of a moral hazard that is limited/negated by legalizatin.
> I'm just annoyed by the claim that there is no discussion to be had here
I've yet to see anyone make argument for keeping prostitution that isn't either A) Factually incorrect or B) Based on christianity. I'd be happy to discuss such an arguement if you have one.
However, the real debate that we should be having is the best ways to legalize prostitution to make sure that the moral hazards are minimized.
The "Scandinavian Approach" (make buying sex illegal but don't penalize selling) is certainly better than what we have in the US as it makes the justice system available to prostitutes who no longer face jail time for reporting crime committed against them. However helping buyers not get caught is a selling point for sellers, so it still drives the activity into hiding. Hidden activity is harder to regulate and increases the probability that violence can be committed against the sellers.
And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution?
And then adults feeding a drug addiction?
At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need to make it illegal"?
That's already illegal. You've just made discovering it harder.
> And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution?
Also already illegal. You've made discovering it harder.
> And then adults feeding a drug addiction?
That's actually none of your business.
> At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need to make it illegal"?
There's no need since you don't actually solve coerced prostitution by making it illegal.
Maybe we should just make one singular law that says "be nice".
Hey, I bet you could make a religion out of that!
/s
Saying there is already a law that covers something is disconnected from reality, or at least disconnected form language and the way that humans communicate.
For instance: "drugging people is illegal". You haven't defined "drugging" or "people" in that case. Is it drugging a person when a school nurse gives a child a acetaminophen? You're definitely changing both their physical and psychological state, and are in some way establishing a relationship of dependence.
This is why we have more than one law, and why we don't base our laws on religion.
A lot of adults work jobs for a wage to feed their drug habit. Should we make that illegal too?
Kidnapping is already a serious crime.
>And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution?
Say it with me, kidnapping is already a crime.
>And then adults feeding a drug addiction?
A legal and regulated sex industry will no longer provide the 'safe haven' for addicts that the illegal one does today. Note - I'm not claiming it will eliminate it.
>At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need to make it illegal"?
We need not start. By your logic, we should outlaw cars for all the deaths they cause.