Should adult prostitution be legalised?

PeterODonnell

What are people's views on this archaic legislation? I personally feel that it shows the State to be still, in spite of all the progress of the liberal agenda in recent years, e.g. end to ban on divorce, legalisation of homosexuality and contraception etc. unable to keep its nose out of the bedrooms of consenting Irish adults. May I emphasise again that I am talking about ADULT prostitution here. What business is it of our politicians if one consenting adult has sex with another and chooses to pay/accept money for that? Honestly who cares! It should only be proscribed where it is shown or suspected that the man/woman has been forced into prostitution or where it is used to fundraise for a criminal organisation. But otherwise, what's the big deal?

It has already been legalised in some other countries, e.g. Nevada in the US. The State could tax the proceeds of adult prostitution to raise money for the health and education services. Furthermore, brining it all out in the open would make it easier to regulate the adult sex-industry in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of the spread of STD's. I honestly don't get what some people oppose such a legalisation. What harm is it doing them? What are other people's views on this? Remember, homosexuality, contraception, and divorce were all taboo subjects at one point. It's high time this taboo was broken too.

PeterODonnell

This poll is in the context of my previous post on the same issue.

Sparks

I say let's wait and see how it goes for the kiwis and then make our decision.
But I can't see much of a downside to be honest.

Boston

Legalising prostitution in ireland would be the greatest blow to organised crime ever in the state, and for that reason alone i support it, and legalising canabis. While i accept that both these things are socially damaging, the evils of their existance in an illegal enviroment is far more damaging.

Paddy20

Ah, the oldest trade of all. Prostitution is the degradation of a human body and spirit. In the pursuit of pleasure, and for mere money.

I suppose many would argue that it should be legalised, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However,imho any society that legalises it is no longer fit to refer to itself as Christian or Humanatarian.

Boston

Originally posted by Paddy20
Ah, the oldest trade of all. Prostitution is the degradation of a human body and spirit. In the pursuit of pleasure, and for mere money.

I suppose many would argue that it should be legalised, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However,imho any society that legalises it is no longer fit to refer to itself as Christian or Humanatarian.

I get the christian bit, i don't get the humanatarian bit? in a legalised situation, prostitutes would be less likely to be victiums of circumstance, more likely to be in it for the money then that they where forced into it by drugs or abuse.

Btw not being christian is no harm at all,

sci0x

I dont think it should be legalised! Exchanging sex for money is morally wrong. Legalisation would encourage prostitution which encourages the treatment of women as commodities. Also STDs would spread like wild fire!

gandalf

This is more a humanities issue. Moving it there.

Gandalf.

Sparks

Originally posted by denis_o_leary
I dont think it should be legalised! Exchanging sex for money is morally wrong.

Easy claim to make, damn hard one to prove past the standard of proof that goes "because I say it does".

Legalisation would encourage prostitution which encourages the treatment of women as commodities.

No it doesn't (encourage prostituition). It just protects the women involved.

Also STDs would spread like wild fire!

Hasn't happened in Austrailia, hasn't happened in Nevada, hasn't happened in New Zealand.

Paddy,

Ah, the oldest trade of all. Prostitution is the degradation of a human body and spirit. In the pursuit of pleasure, and for mere money.

"mere" money? Is your last name Smurfit or something?
These women get involved because money is a long way from a mere triviality for most people. If you want to stop prostitution, you'd do a lot more towards furthering that cause by finding an alternative way for them to earn money than by simply saying "Oh, that's immoral, you'll go to hell for that"...

I suppose many would argue that it should be legalised, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However,imho any society that legalises it is no longer fit to refer to itself as Christian or Humanatarian.

Christian maybe. But I don't see that as a bad thing - there are innumerable examples throughout both the modern and historical worlds showing that a state should not be tied to a religion.
As to humanitarian, you've not thought that through very well, I suspect. Legalisation is the humanitarian option.

PeterODonnell

Paddy20 says "Prostitution is the degradation of a human body and spirit. In the pursuit of pleasure, and for mere money...imho any society that legalises it is no longer fit to refer to itself as Christian or Humanatarian.".

Paddy20, the argument about using money for "mere pleasure" could also be used in respect of alcohol, going to the cinema, going to the pub, or even just buying sweets. Do you consider those people to be "no longer fit" to be seen as Christian or humanitarian? Morality is best judged by whether the action harms another. If it does not, then I say live and let live.

mike65

Legalise it....get it off the streets, away from the pimps and licenced by the health boards. Cleaner and safer...

Mike.

chill

Originally posted by mike65
Legalise it....get it off the streets, away from the pimps and licenced by the health boards. Cleaner and safer...

Prostitution has been with us for millenia and will remain with us as long as people, usually men, will pay for sex and women will sell it.
Criminalisation is simply burying society's head in the sands of denial and allowing prostitutes to suffer from organised crime, brutality, crimincalisation and the rabid spread of sexual diseases and AIDS.

Prostitution should be legalised when restricted to licensed brothels, monitored for health and safecty as well as the personal freedoms of the prostitutes. This will deliver freedom to the prostitutes, depreive organised crime of millions in revenue, reduce disease enormously and allow adults to carry on their lives as they see fit.

Street prostitution should then be shut down completely.

Hotel and society based prostitution will be with us until the end of humanity.

PeterODonnell

Denis says that it encourages the degradation of women. But what about women who WANT to provide this service? And men for that matter? I think it's patronising for some to feel they know better than consenting adults themselves what is best for them in terms of consensual sex with another/other adults.

simu

I would be in favour of legalised prostitution if it meant prostitutes had complete control over their work and earnings(i.e. elimination of pimps), if it meant they had decent working conditions(health, pension benefits) and safe places to work in, if it was assured that all those carrying out this work had good mental health and were doing it out of their own free will and if those who wanted to change careers were given the facility to do so. Hopefully, it would also put an end to the public's disparaging opinion of prostitutes - it would become a career like any other.

The above seems utopian though and I fear that legalisation of prostitution in Ireland would be of benefit to whatever "fat cats" would be in charge of it rather than to the prostitutes themselves.

On a somewhat related note, I'm surprised that even in places like the Netherlands, women paying for sexual services from (handsome, young) men has never taken off (as far as i know, anyway). It's pretty easy for a young woman to find somebody to have sex with for free but what happens at the age of 50/60 if you're just looking for some quick sexual thrills? I wonder will demand for this type of service grow as women who grew up with feminism and who are independent financially mature? In the future, will women be able to pop into a (legal) brothel during their lunchbreaks for a quick bout of oral sex from a limber young tongue?

I'm not just going for laughs here - the idea of prostitution would disturb me far less if it wasn't for the fact that 99% of the time, the focus is on male desire.

MadsL

women paying for sexual services from (handsome, young) men has never taken off (as far as i know, anyway).

You are kidding, right. Did you even make a cursory Search ??

GuanYin

Originally posted by simu
I would be in favour of legalised prostitution if it meant prostitutes had complete control over their work and earnings(i.e. elimination of pimps), if it meant they had decent working conditions(health, pension benefits) and safe places to work in, if it was assured that all those carrying out this work had good mental health and were doing it out of their own free will and if those who wanted to change careers were given the facility to do so. Hopefully, it would also put an end to the public's disparaging opinion of prostitutes - it would become a career like any other.

Hrmmm... it would be a public health nightmare.

It would probably raise STI's by an order of magnitude in a country (ireland) where it is still running unchecked (actually its on the rise here).

I can't see anything utopian about it an dI've seen enough STI infections in young prostitutes (admitted or otherwise) to last a life time.

To be fair, its not as bad here as in other countries. I was approached 4 times in the space of 30 minutes by prostitutes while walking back from a hotel in glasgow.

simu

decent working conditions = regular checks for STDs amongst other things

GuanYin

Originally posted by simu
decent working conditions = regular checks for STDs amongst other things

I'm sorry to alway disagree with you (see PM) but I think we're idiological opposites!!!

Carried out where?
Carried out by who?
Paid for by who?
Regulated by who?

If it happened, I'd almost demand medical health checks to get a license to solicit. I certainly wouldn't trust a protitute (least of all the customers) to rigourously stick to safe sex 100% of the time.

But do you think the health service could cope with say 500 initial licences requiring a check up every 3 months?

I don't think it could.

Sparks

From above :

Also STDs would spread like wild fire!

Hasn't happened in Austrailia, hasn't happened in Nevada, hasn't happened in New Zealand.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Sparks
From above :



Hasn't happened in Austrailia, hasn't happened in Nevada, hasn't happened in New Zealand.

[/QUOTE]

Emm, STI in australia is much much higher than here per person. New Zealand & Nevada I'm not sure about (but new zealand has 200 sheep per person so it might be an explanation if it isn't).

One thing I will say about epidemiology in australia, because of the distance between cities without habitation, you will never see the same sort of widespread effect of an epidemic as you will see in Ireland.

pro_gnostic_8

No, it shouldn't! A government that legitimizes prostitution is abrogating its moral and societal responsibilities.

Prostitution demeans the prostitute and empowers the "John" -- most often a wealthier male in a higher socio-economic demographic. Decriminalisation of prostitution is a signal by the State that these sordid transactions between the haves and have-nots are acceptable. It gives credence to the dangerous notion that a woman engaged in prostitution because of her economic circumstances is an object to be bought or rented by the hour........ not a human being but a piece of meat to be used, often abused, and cast aside.

Substituting the "street" pimp with the "State" pimp (thru taxing the prostitute,etc) is a backward step for society IMHO. It diminishes the standing of Woman in society, and desensitizes the wider community to the disenfranchisement and exclusion of those involved in the world of prostitution because of poverty and non-education.

BKtje

Personally i think it should be legalised.

The health checks can be payed for by a) the license b) the tax of it. Health risks for both the customers and employees would drop and the likely hood of a serious crime (eg robbery of either party) would drop.

Currently im sure there are prostitutes who have an STD and are currently unaware or dont care. They are then passing it on to their 'customers'.

Calling the State a pimp in this case would be going abit overboard as the state wouldnt actually be finding customers, just ensuring the safety of employees and said customers. The business would have to be run under health and safety act etc.
Would take it off the streets and organised crime would take a large financial hit (as people have said).

Persoanlly i have no time for religious reasons to block it.
Would probably cost the state some money (especially initally) but imo would help cut down on some diseases.

Imposter

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8


Prostitution demeans the prostitute and empowers the "John" -- most often a wealthier male in a higher socio-economic demographic. Decriminalisation of prostitution is a signal by the State that these sordid transactions between the haves and have-nots are acceptable. It gives credence to the dangerous notion that a woman engaged in prostitution because of her economic circumstances is an object to be bought or rented by the hour........ not a human being but a piece of meat to be used, often abused, and cast aside.

This reasoning of economic circumstances used here can be applied to anyone who works for someone else! Everyone who works as an employee 'because of their economic circumstances' are used by the company for the companies benifit and generally not the individuals. As for the 'piece of meat' argument it's the choice of the person whether they do this or not.

Substituting the "street" pimp with the "State" pimp (thru taxing the prostitute,etc) is a backward step for society IMHO. It diminishes the standing of Woman in society, ...

Why? Does it do this any worse than other jobs that most would classify as been beneath them? Surely you must agree that legalising it and putting the correct checks and balances in place can actually help combat organised crime (in this area) and improve the lot of the prostitutes?

<edit>Fixed quotes

Wook

I am getting tired of people trying to combine religion and state for decision making.
I am getting tired of religions trying to affect my life, I don't go around 'converting' priests to a non-religion lifestyle.

why don't we all try to look at these issues with a humane eye rather than filtered out and obscured by religion.

Many countries on the continent have these laws in place that protect the woman working the streets. if somebody decides to work in such environment who's to say they can not ? And all the people cracking off morality issues, you try to live their lives or give them an alternative? Understand that not all people are forces into this. What makes you so much better and allows you to judge people that would visit such places ? Maybe it has a few good sides.

In Belgium disabled people get special grants from the state that allows them to visit the working girls...you explain them it's morally wrong.
woman working in special red light destricts also pay taxes to the state but get free STD check-ups and there's a help-group called Payoke.

TheWolf

Should be legalised IMO. It is often the individual's choice, and this would go toward protecting them, or at least impose some sort of control over it.

Also, on a side note, maybe, MAYBE it could help cut down on police time, if they don't have to focus on this issue, they could go for bigger crimes.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and i've been known to be wrong...

GuanYin

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Personally i think it should be legalised.

The health checks can be payed for by a) the license b) the tax of it. Health risks for both the customers and employees would drop and the likely hood of a serious crime (eg robbery of either party) would drop.

Currently im sure there are prostitutes who have an STD and are currently unaware or dont care. They are then passing it on to their 'customers'.

Making people have to pay for a license will just mean that illegal prostitution continues thus invalidating the whole idea.

There are definitely STIs among prostitutes in this country, however due to its current legal state they are less accessable. If it was legalised, then it would be an issue.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Much like the question of legalising dope.

If it's legal, it's less likely to be a criminally motivated and crontolled activity, however legalisation implies condonement.

Thus society either chooses to condone a thing, so that that thing can be controlled and policed or society chooses to outlaw a thing, on the grounds that society finds such a thing incompatable with it's ethos/economy/rule of law.

Do I agree with prostituion ?
No.

Do I agree with illegal immigrants to Ireland and England being turned into slaves (who just happen to provide sex, under threat) ?
No.

Do I think prostituion undermines personal relationships?
Sort of.

Do I think slavery undermines society.
Yes.

Do I think that it's demaning for a human to sell sex to another human?
Pretty much. Such is the nature of the evolutionary response humans have to sex.

Is prostitution a fact of life?
Yes.

Does having it outlawed decrease it's practise?
Probably.

Does having it outlawed turn people into slaves for pimps?
Yes.

Do I think it should be legal?
Yes and No.

Ilegality is a moral statement, and decreases the practise of prostituion, yet at the same time, increases criminal abuse.

In order to decrease a potential slave trade, it is probably more moral to allow the 'willing' to be prostitues (within the law), if, some extremely misguided person, really wants to sell, sex, instead of any number of other roles society has for a person.

Yes, it's an affront to the supposed utopian iconaclasim of society, but, illegality has caused a slave trade, like in the UK, so the only solution is to legalise prostituion and live with the 'moral' affrontery it causes.

Legalise all adult consentual forms of it too and live with the illictness of child prostituion, in perpetuity, since minors cannot decide for themselves in theory or reality.

Again the individual makes the choice, to use a prostitute (male/female) or not, to be a prostitue (male/female) or not, but, illegality removes societies control over it, makes it illicit and increases criminal abuse, leading to those who aren't at least "theoretically" consentual, being 'forced' into being sex slaves, and that is the most immoral thing I think society can allow to happen.

BKtje

Making people have to pay for a license will just mean that illegal prostitution continues thus invalidating the whole idea.

Not if there are perks like free STD checks and other benefits.

There are definitely STIs among prostitutes in this country, however due to its current legal state they are less accessable. If it was legalised, then it would be an issue.

Not if each Prostitute has to go for a check up before gaining their licence. The licence would then be a sign to punters that this person has a clean bill of health. If i were to use one i know i'd prefer one that had something saying that he/she was disease free. Would then be up to the punter to ask for the licence(or for them to have it on display like taxi drivers)

I imagine the use of prostitution would rise for the first while when its new (if it was legalised) as they'd wanna try it out.
But would drop again. (similar to canabis abuse in holland, its legal but it aint as popular as here)

The poll results so far are interesting. I wonder tho if thats because mainly younger people read boards* and wether with a survey more inclined towards older people what the results would be.

EDIT: good post typedef

*assumption

Sparks

Making people have to pay for a license will just mean that illegal prostitution continues thus invalidating the whole idea.

No, no more than making people pay for a rifle licence will encourage the illegal holding of sporting firearms.
(He said, looking at the renewal forms for his firearms licences)

chill

Originally posted by simu
I would be in favour of legalised prostitution if it meant prostitutes had complete control over their work and earnings(i.e. elimination of pimps), if it meant they had decent working conditions(health, pension benefits) and safe places to work in, if it was assured that all those carrying out this work had good mental health and were doing it out of their own free will and if those who wanted to change careers were given the facility to do so. Hopefully, it would also put an end to the public's disparaging opinion of prostitutes - it would become a career like any other.

Absolutely. It's isn't like 'I' approve of it or would like anyone 'I' know to do it. But that shouldn't be the criteria for legalisation of any activity.

The above seems utopian though and I fear that legalisation of prostitution in Ireland would be of benefit to whatever "fat cats" would be in charge of it rather than to the prostitutes themselves.

I don't agree at all. A multitude of other business are regulated perfectly adequately and this regulation takes place in several other countries such as Australia and some US states.
There is no reason whatsoever why prostitutes should not be able to control their own businesses, their lives and their health in an open and transparent way, supervised by a suitable legal entity such as the Health Boards.
It is the 'fat cats' that are making millions off the back of women as it stands NOW !

On a somewhat related note, I'm surprised that even in places like the Netherlands, women paying for sexual services from (handsome, young) men has never taken off (as far as i know, anyway).

There are several, many even, establishments as close as London where women of all ages regularly employ men for sex, though they usually operate as escort services. I have heard of it becoming not uncommon in Dublin recently.

I'm not just going for laughs here - the idea of prostitution would disturb me far less if it wasn't for the fact that 99% of the time, the focus is on male desire.

Personally I find this a disturbing attitude in itself.

Surely taking a completely sexist attitude toward mens desires is far far less concerning than the plight of street prostitutes and others that right now are being exploited mercilessly by pimps and other organised crime entities.

And prostitution wouldn't even exist if it were not for the fact that women are prepared to sell themselves for money. Why is this so much less disturbing than men being willing to pay ?

GuanYin

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Not if there are perks like free STD checks and other benefits.


Not if each Prostitute has to go for a check up before gaining their licence. The licence would then be a sign to punters that this person has a clean bill of health. If i were to use one i know i'd prefer one that had something saying that he/she was disease free. Would then be up to the punter to ask for the licence(or for them to have it on display like taxi drivers)

I imagine the use of prostitution would rise for the first while when its new (if it was legalised) as they'd wanna try it out.
But would drop again. (similar to canabis abuse in holland, its legal but it aint as popular as here)

Ok, this is a professional opinion (this is my are of work ..medical, not prostitution that is).

In order to have an effective system, that does not compromise public health. You would require a check up every 3 months and hoep to god that they all practice safe sex.

Now, if we say that initially 1000 licenses are granted that means 4000 medical consults and STI examinations (the full range, so that includes HIV tests) a year.

That costs alot of money. It would probably be a strain on the system that clinics woul not really be able to cope with.

So its a free perk?
Who would pay for it? Tax payers.
Can you see, given the mindset in this country, tax payers being happy with this? 1000 extra HIV tests every 3 months? 1000 extra personal STI exams every three months?

And thats only initially...what if the sector grows?

Who will regulate these check ups and process the reports?
I think its workable, just not in this country with this health system.

And what if after a few years the government withdraws the free check ups (as they are wont to do)

I'm not against protitution per se (I'm not interested in ever using the service) but the fact of the matter is, if its brought in, it will be a severe public health risk and would make me think twice about having sex with someone without them having a check up themselves. this is a good attitude now, but it would almost be a must if this was brought in.

chill

Originally posted by sykeirl Ok, this is a professional opinion (this is my are of work ..medical, not prostitution that is).

Oh dear. I thought for a minute we would get some 'real' insight

In order to have an effective system, that does not compromise public health. You would require a check up every 3 months and hope to god that they all practice safe sex.

Sounds sensible to me. Though having a monthly blood test doesn't seem impractical to me...

Now, if we say that initially 1000 licenses are granted that means 4000 medical consults and STI examinations (the full range, so that includes HIV tests) a year.

I have no clue about the numbers of prostitutes in Ireland but 4,000 sounds on the high side. But I'll follow your reasoning ...

That costs alot of money. It would probably be a strain on the system that clinics would not really be able to cope with.

First though the main numbers would be in Dublin the burden would be spread around the country. I don't see why it would add a huge amount to the budgets.

So its a free perk?

Why not ?

Who would pay for it? Tax payers. Can you see, given the mindset in this country, tax payers being happy with this? 1000 extra HIV tests every 3 months? 1000 extra personal STI exams every three months?

I'd be delighted. Don't you realise what a health danger prostitution is to the country as a whole ? Men have sex with prostitutes and then have sex with their girld friends and wives. It's a BIG problem. The costs you talk about would be WELL worth the money !!

Who will regulate these check ups and process the reports?
I think its workable, just not in this country with this health system.

Our health system copes on the whole and would cope with this additional issue very well imho. We would be saving money in the long run and benefiting the whole population.

And what if after a few years the government withdraws the free check ups (as they are wont to do)

Then vote against it.

I'm not against protitution per se (I'm not interested in ever using the service) but the fact of the matter is, if its brought in, it will be a severe public health risk and would make me think twice about having sex with someone without them having a check up themselves. this is a good attitude now, but it would almost be a must if this was brought in. [/B]

On the contrary. I find it hard to believe you are in the health sector when you say this.

It is the present situation that is the serious health risk to this and every other country. Unsupervised, unchecked prostitutes roaming the streets and bars; uncjecked spread of SDTs and AIDS etc etc.
It would also free women and men to walk many of the streets in the main cities where they regularly get harrassed by potential customers or prostitutes.

Legalisation would dramatically reduce the health problem. And considering prostitution has been going on, and easily available for millenia, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that more people would be having sex with prostitutes.

In fact it would be a lot more comforting for prospective partners to know that if their partner were to be having sex with a prostitute, then it would be with a supervised legal prostitite and the chances of cathing something would be far les after legalisation.

JustHalf

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Not if there are perks like free STD checks and other benefits.

Free STD checks? So, the prostitutes pay their licence fee, and assuming the cost of the licence to them is less than the cost of the checks to the state, then we have a net cost (to the state).

You do realise this means subsidised prostitution, right?

Regardless of your opinion on legalising prostitution, I don't see why tax-payers money should go directly to supporting prostitution.

John2002

I say legalise and regulate it.

Desperate people are always going to use protitutes regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Legalising prostitution would remove a lot of the seediness that surrounds this "profession" and make it a lot safer for the ladies and men involved. There would be less rapes and less murders if it was controlled in the correct manner.

GuanYin

Originally posted by chill
I have no clue about the numbers of prostitutes in Ireland but 4,000 sounds on the high side. But I'll follow your reasoning ...

No, 1000 licenses checked every 3 months is 4000 a year.

Originally posted by chill

First though the main numbers would be in Dublin the burden would be spread around the country. I don't see why it would add a huge amount to the budgets.

Because contrary to popular opinion running labs isn't cheap. These tests cost money to do (the reagents are expensive and strangely enough are taxed at 21% by the government)

How do you see it being spread around the country? How many Virus reference laboratories do you think we have?

(I'll tell you the answer in the next post)

Originally posted by chill

I'd be delighted. Don't you realise what a health danger prostitution is to the country as a whole ? Men have sex with prostitutes and then have sex with their girld friends and wives. It's a BIG problem. The costs you talk about would be WELL worth the money !!

I'm not arguing that point, but I'm arguing that you would not be able to convince a the voting majority of this. At least not enough not to vote for the party against the idea.

Originally posted by chill
Our health system copes on the whole and would cope with this additional issue very well imho. We would be saving money in the long run and benefiting the whole population.

Really? I can point you in the direction of a few thousand patients and people on waiting lists who would beg to differ.

Originally posted by chill

Then vote against it.

The government needs a referendum for budget allocations?
When did this happen? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by chill

On the contrary. I find it hard to believe you are in the health sector when you say this.

Using your knowledge of the irish health system, epidemiology and your experience with patients coming into hospitals with STIs to validate your points, explain exactly why this is.

Or is this just because you don't agree with me?

Originally posted by chill
It is the present situation that is the serious health risk to this and every other country. Unsupervised, unchecked prostitutes roaming the streets and bars; uncjecked spread of SDTs and AIDS etc etc..

Well now,I'm not even going to try explain to you what is wrong with this point. Go read up on STI's and possibly find out what AIDS is and teh difference between it and HIV (oh and possibly some statistical risk analysis on HIV in this country) and then come back to me :rolleyes:

Originally posted by chill
It would also free women and men to walk many of the streets in the main cities where they regularly get harrassed by potential customers or prostitutes.

They are harassed? When, how? Where?

Incidently, how many boardsters have been solicited?
I pass Leeson street every night on the way home form work (and used to club there a bit when I was younger) and have never been approached.

(I was in Glasgow's red light district and was approached 4 times in one night).

Originally posted by chill
Legalisation would dramatically reduce the health problem. And considering prostitution has been going on, and easily available for millenia, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that more people would be having sex with prostitutes.

I don't have a rational arguement against that.
Mainly because its naive b**locks!

How can you possibly say that?
You don't think that some lonely business clerk wouldn't be more likely to hire a hooker if he knew he couldn't be arrested (and risk being a convicted felon...getting fired, losing international visa privlidges etc etc) for it?

Originally posted by chill
In fact it would be a lot more comforting for prospective partners to know that if their partner were to be having sex with a prostitute, then it would be with a supervised legal prostitite and the chances of cathing something would be far les after legalisation.

No, I think the incidences of separation and divorce would sky rocket and that there would still be "un-licensed" prostitution and the risk of STIs along with a strain on teh health system trying to regulate it.

BKtje

OK free check ups i agree are a bit of a no go. I admit that.
However (i dont really know all that much about prostitution) i assume that at the moment a fairly large chunk of the earnings go back to the pimps, mob boss or whatever. Why not just use this money for the lab checks (which is payable through the licence. You geta licence for a year. The Licence fee then includes the tests). The prostitutes would be earning a similar amount but instead of earning criminals millions its instead used to a)do the checks and make the profession safer for customers b) any money left over can be ploughed into research to help combat the diseases.

Off course there would then be 'illegal prostitutes' who would not have a licence or whatever but if its legal why then run the risk with an illegal prostitute and the large fine/jailtime that goes with it.

The above method then hopefully wouldn't cost much money and may even help combat the diseases.
How much is it to get one of these lab tests done out of curiosity skyeirl (dont know if u know or not but in the medical industry you might be more likely to know)?

GuanYin

I still think these arguements are a bit utopian and aren't factoring in things like human nature.....
Will you ask to see a prostitutes license at 3am after a night out to make sure she's legal?

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
skyeirl (dont know if u know or not but in the medical industry you might be more likely to know)?

The test itself, when done in bulk would costs about 30 Euros per person per virus in reagents & disposables. (that about 150 Euros per person a time)

However, HIV and Hep are Class 3 pathogens so you will need extra biosafety level 3 lab space and more importantly, to pay and train staff to use the equipment.

Plus you'd need the general cost of running a lab for all other STI infections plus the equipment used to read and analyse the tests is costly.

BKtje

Of course initial cost is going to be great. It always is but if it can be done at the prices you said then it would easily be doable considering the amount of profit available. However i think the question of money in this case is going slighlty off topic. My apologies.

Will you ask to see a prostitutes license at 3am after a night out to make sure she's legal

Personally (if i was into this kinda thing) i probably would, my own well being is at stake. Of course this is dependant on the intake of alcohol. I of course can't speak for everyone.

If it was legalised it would be taken off the street(or so i'd hope) with proper brothels opened up. People would go to these places where a level of trust could be established. Of course you aint gonna check licences at 3am when your drunk but people dont only go to these places at 3am and/or under influence.

chill

Originally posted by sykeirl
Because contrary to popular opinion running labs isn't cheap. These tests cost money to do (the reagents are expensive and strangely enough are taxed at 21% by the government)

It may have passed you by but the fact is that the government pays for the tests and the tax and then gets the tex back. Is this so complicated ?

How do you see it being spread around the country? How many Virus reference laboratories do you think we have?
(I'll tell you the answer in the next post)

It's rather obvious. Each Health Board would pay for their own region's testing.....

I'm not arguing that point, but I'm arguing that you would not be able to convince a the voting majority of this. At least not enough not to vote for the party against the idea.

A fair argument. But one which I disagree with.

Really? I can point you in the direction of a few thousand patients and people on waiting lists who would beg to differ.

Well it's quite a nonsensical viepoint to hold that means that a health system is by definition not coping if there are people on waiting lists. I hope we are never so stupid that we try to establish a health service with zero waiting lists. It would bankrupt the country.

Using your knowledge of the irish health system, epidemiology and your experience with patients coming into hospitals with STIs to validate your points, explain exactly why this is.

No one with any medical knowledge tied to life knowledge could argue that legalised prostitution would increase the health risk of prostitution. Get a life.

I wonder if you have any medical knowledge
Or is this just because you don't agree with me?

It's the idiocy of your argument that casts doubt on your claimed knowledge.

Well now,I'm not even going to try explain to you what is wrong with this point. Go read up on STI's and possibly find out what AIDS is and teh difference between it and HIV (oh and possibly some statistical risk analysis on HIV in this country) and then come back to me :rolleyes:

More indications of your lack of knowledge. Ask anyone in the city centre health system dealing with prostitution and the spread of STDs, and being married in to the field I have spoken to quite a few, and they will laugh at the idea that legalisation would increase the problem.

They are harassed? When, how? Where?

I don't know what planet you live on but having worked over a period of twenty years in offices on Baggot street, Grafton street and Dawson street I have been told endless numbers of stories by unhappy women about their experiences on Leeson street and the surrounding streets. I myself have often been approached off Leeson street by ghastly looking prostitutes.

I don't have a rational arguement against that.
Mainly because its naive b**locks!

Ah ... this must be your esxpert medical analysis surfacing.

How can you possibly say that?
You don't think that some lonely business clerk wouldn't be more likely to hire a hooker if he knew he couldn't be arrested (and risk being a convicted felon...getting fired, losing international visa privlidges etc etc) for it?

Absolutely not. Few men with the mental capability of using a hooker would be either encouraged or discouraged. The chances of getting arrested in Dublin are approaching zero.

And your implication that the health risks would not be reduced is also patent nonsense. How many pros around Dublin are regularly tested ? how many are prevented from working if they are infected with an STD ?
Your arguments hold no water or sense.

No, I think the incidences of separation and divorce would sky rocket and that there would still be "un-licensed" prostitution and the risk of STIs along with a strain on teh health system trying to regulate it.

Ha !!! This sounds like the pathetic posters plastered all over Ireland during the divorce referendum. They were laughed at as the claptrap they were then and the same applies now.

Legalisation will reduce health problems in Ireland, clean up the streets and protect women from organised crime.

GuanYin

I'm going to preface this post by saying that Chill, you are trolling.
Seeing as you are new I'll humour you this once.

You have not actually made one valid point in your post but just made snide and petty remark about me.

If you would like to actually answer any of the questions I put to you in the previous post with more than just heresay and conjecture and leave the personal jibes out, then I will continue the debate. Otherwise I'll give you the mertit that your post deserves.

Originally posted by chill
It may have passed you by but the fact is that the government pays for the tests and the tax and then gets the tex back. Is this so complicated ?

Because when the health board allocates a budget it doesn't take the tax into account.

Originally posted by chill
It's rather obvious. Each Health Board would pay for their own region's testing.....

Ok, but there is still only one virus reference lab in the country.
Which is outsourced. So they have to pay. Plus they actually need more doctors and technicians to take the samples.

Healthboards are currently underfunded (or at least badly administrated) and money for this would not be readily available to cope with a huge increase in testing.

Originally posted by chill
Well it's quite a nonsensical viepoint to hold that means that a health system is by definition not coping if there are people on waiting lists. I hope we are never so stupid that we try to establish a health service with zero waiting lists. It would bankrupt the country.

My viewpoint is nonsensical?

Do you know the difference between private and public healthcare?
Who do you think are on the waiting lists?

I'd like you to elaborate on your remark here because it seems you don't understand how the countries health system works.
Or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying....
Either way, can you explain it to me?

Originally posted by chill
No one with any medical knowledge tied to life knowledge could argue that legalised prostitution would increase the health risk of prostitution. Get a life.

Strangely I have 6 years medical experience and a postgraduate qualification in infectious disease. I teach medical students and am a fellow of the national disease surveillance centre.

Of course I am only giving my opinion and not speaking for any institute, but sure, what would I know.....

Originally posted by chill
It's the idiocy of your argument that casts doubt on your claimed knowledge..

At least one of us is making an arguement.
all you are doing is name calling and giving conjecture.

Originally posted by chill
More indications of your lack of knowledge. Ask anyone in the city centre health system dealing with prostitution and the spread of STDs, and being married in to the field I have spoken to quite a few, and they will laugh at the idea that legalisation would increase the problem...

I'll grant you that the brunt of my experience is in paediatrics but I worked in a casualty ward in a north dublin hospital for 20 months and I know all about STIs.

Legislation may or may not increase the public health problem. What it won't do is solve the problem. What it will do, is cause a strain on the health service.

Originally posted by chill
I don't know what planet you live on but having worked over a period of twenty years in offices on Baggot street, Grafton street and Dawson street I have been told endless numbers of stories by unhappy women about their experiences on Leeson street and the surrounding streets. I myself have often been approached off Leeson street by ghastly looking prostitutes.

Well I can't make a comment for anyone else.

I just said I've never seen it.
I didn't say it wasn't a problem.

Originally posted by chill
Absolutely not. Few men with the mental capability of using a hooker would be either encouraged or discouraged. The chances of getting arrested in Dublin are approaching zero.

Oddly I agree with your comment alluding to the justice system in Dublin. However, I think its naive to think that people wouldn't be more encouraged to use prostitutes if they were legal and readily available. I think those who would use it but don't because of the risk element would be encouraged.

I don't see how or why you think they wouldn't be.

Originally posted by chill
And your implication that the health risks would not be reduced is also patent nonsense. How many pros around Dublin are regularly tested ? how many are prevented from working if they are infected with an STD ?
Your arguments hold no water or sense..

So if it is legalised then every single prostitute will be licensed and legal?

Not a chance, there will always be those who won't pay the licence, or not take the check ups. Do you think those who are currently infected will give up there lifestyle because they don't get a licence?

Will they say, "oh well the government says I can't be a hooker because I have a disease...I better stop now" ??

Originally posted by chill
Ha !!! This sounds like the pathetic posters plastered all over Ireland during the divorce referendum. They were laughed at as the claptrap they were then and the same applies now.

Legalisation will reduce health problems in Ireland, clean up the streets and protect women from organised crime.

I don't see how this could be related or even brought up by a divorce referendum, but maybe its something else for you to explain.

I'm afraid your summary is severely misguided. It seems by your attitude towards me that you are either a troll or a fanatic. Either way I don't think anything I say will make difference to you, but I haven't seen any arguement from you at all, just snide remarks.

Please try make a case for your opinions.

simu

Surely taking a completely sexist attitude toward mens desires is far far less concerning than the plight of street prostitutes and others that right now are being exploited mercilessly by pimps and other organised crime entities.

And prostitution wouldn't even exist if it were not for the fact that women are prepared to sell themselves for money. Why is this so much less disturbing than men being willing to pay ?

(said chill)


I'm not being sexist here - I was just trying to counter the argument in favour of prostitution that goes along the lines of men(disabled, without partners, soldiers on duty etc) needing prostitutes to exist so that they can satisfy their desires as if they were incapable of exerting self-control. I don't think this is true for most men and any man who claims he can't live without having sex (with sb else) every so often needs help IMO.

As for women being willing to prostitute themselves - generally, it's because they have no other way of earning money or because they're being manipulated emotionally if not downright sold into service by other people.

I'd prefer if prostitution could be eliminated but this seems impossible at the moment so I think it would be more pragmatic to try and make things as safe as possible for those who have become involved in this trade.
Maybe there would be less suffering associated with it if prostitution became just another job in the service industry. But I think that as long as most of the clients are male(and this is the case despite the services for women that have been mentioned) and most of the prostitutes are female, prostitution will continue to be seen as something abhorrent(even if legalised), prostitutes will be seen as freak-women and therefore undeserving of respect as human beings and it will be yet another form of the age-old habit of men treating women as objects.

Skyeirl, I agree that STIs are also a problem but I think some level of health services for prostitutes is better than none. With increasing promiscuity, STIs are becoming more frequent in ppl who don't go to prostitutes as well - maybe it would be a good idea to try to instill the habit of getting tested regularly in all sexually active ppl.

BKtje

So if it is legalised then every single prostitute will be licensed and legal?

Not a chance, there will always be those who won't pay the licence, or not take the check ups. Do you think those who are currently infected will give up there lifestyle because they don't get a licence?

Of course not, this isn't a quick fix. It would be slow and gradual.
The present prostitutes with STD's wouldnt go for a licence, thats fairly obvious. However their income would probably drop (as people who care about diseases at least, will use licenced ones) and eventually be forced to look into other forms of employment. One less prostitute with an STD on the street/brothel.

The prostitutes without an STD or people new to the prostitution service would probably get a licence as they would then be allowed work in licenced brothels or whatever. (therefore access to a larger customer base /money).
This process wouldn't be instant, probably take a couple of years.

GuanYin

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Of course not, this isn't a quick fix. It would be slow and gradual.
The present prostitutes with STD's wouldnt go for a licence, thats fairly obvious. However their income would probably drop (as people who care about diseases at least, will use licenced ones) and eventually be forced to look into other forms of employment. One less prostitute with an STD on the street/brothel.

The prostitutes without an STD or people new to the prostitution service would probably get a licence as they would then be allowed work in licenced brothels or whatever. (therefore access to a larger customer base /money).
This process wouldn't be instant, probably take a couple of years.

If it becomes legal, the main argument for its regulation is that the brothels will need a license.
This is fair.

Will brothels be reputable? Hard to say. We won't know unless it actually happens. I don't really believe media hype, but there is some question over the running of lap dancing and strip clubs in Ireland now that they are legal. If these are being run in a dodgy fashion then I'd be highly dubious about brothels.

Secondly, will there be soliciting in bars and clubs? It occurs on other countries where prostitution is legal (and some where its not) so its hard to see it being stopped here. Whatever about reputable brothels, this is where the problem lies.

I find it very hard to believe, that anyone inclinced to use a prostitute, at 4am in the morning after 7 pints, will ask that eastern european blonde to see her licence.

Its all very well saying that sensible people will look out for their well being. But believe me, the world just doesn't work like that.

chill

I'm going to preface this post by saying that Chill, you are trolling.
Seeing as you are new I'll humour you this once.

Patronising responses as a substitute for argument doesn't fool anyone.

You have not actually made one valid point in your post but just made snide and petty remark about me.

A mystifyingly touchy response considering it was you who responded "I don't have a rational arguement against that.Mainly because its naive b**locks!" or was that supposed to quality as intellectual argument ?

If you would like to actually answer any of the questions I put to you in the previous post with more than just heresay and conjecture and leave the personal jibes out, then I will continue the debate. Otherwise I'll give you the mertit that your post deserves.

This isn't a question and answer forum. You argue your point, I'll argue mine and that's how it works. If you can't cope with that then maybe you should leave it alone.

Because when the health board allocates a budget it doesn't take the tax into account.

I'd be fascinated to know the basis on which you claim a Health Board doesn't include the Government taxes in their budgets.

Ok, but there is still only one virus reference lab in the country.
Which is outsourced. So they have to pay. Plus they actually need more doctors and technicians to take the samples.

You claimed that the costs would overwhelm. I pointed out that it would be spread out somewhat and you have no answer. New staff are not a serious problem and nurses are perfectly capable of taking samples. Anyone with medial knowledge would know that.
Hence the claim that this is a major problem doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Healthboards are currently underfunded (or at least badly administrated) and money for this would not be readily available to cope with a huge increase in testing.

50million was found last week for additional handicapped services. I doubt if there would be a problem getting a couple of million for a tiny percentage increase in testing.

My viewpoint is nonsensical?

The viewpoint you expressed is, yes.

Do you know the difference between private and public healthcare?
Who do you think are on the waiting lists?

More questions that you should know the answers to if you have your claimed knowledge.

I'd like you to elaborate on your remark here because it seems you don't understand how the countries health system works.
Or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying....
Either way, can you explain it to me?

You claimed that the Health System is overwhelmed based on the existence of waiting lists. I took issue and pointed out that this was a nonsensical basis on whcih to make such a pronouncement. It's quite simple.

At least one of us is making an arguement.
all you are doing is name calling and giving conjecture.

I believe that naive argument has been exploded already above. Pot, kettle, black comes to mind.

Legislation may or may not increase the public health problem. What it won't do is solve the problem. What it will do, is cause a strain on the health service.

No one claimed anywhere that it would 'solve' everything.
I and others have argued that it is self evident that legalised, health monitored prostitution would reduce the health risk to the country and reduce STD 's and the risk of AIDS. You have made no arguent why this would not be the case. The spread of STD in Ireland is already a strain on the Health Service and a damaging problem for our society. The marginal increase in services required to monitor a legalised prostitution system would imho firstly be well worth the money and secondly would alleviate some of the existing strain in dealing with the issue elsewhere in the system.

Well I can't make a comment for anyone else. I just said I've never seen it. I didn't say it wasn't a problem.

The dangers inherent in taking definitive points of view based solely on direct personal experiences.

Oddly I agree with your comment alluding to the justice system in Dublin. However, I think its naive to think that people wouldn't be more encouraged to use prostitutes if they were legal and readily available. I think those who would use it but don't because of the risk element would be encouraged.

It si quite probable that marginal increase would occur. However firstly I believe the increase would be small and transitory. Most men are not potential customers of prostitutes despite some feminists who stupidly claim that every man would if he could. Secondly I personally don't see that it would be a problem for the society if there were a slight increase. Mature adults are entitled to live they way they wish. Right now young people are sleeping with dozens of partners compared with a couple of decades ago. the possibility that a small increase in percentage may include a visit to a prostitute would hardly damage society.

So if it is legalised then every single prostitute will be licensed and legal? Not a chance, there will always be those who won't pay the licence, or not take the check ups. Do you think those who are currently infected will give up there lifestyle because they don't get a licence?

If legalised brothels were introduced then the vast majority of the women would chose to work where they would keep a LOT more of their earnings, get health care and protection from organised crime and pimps.
Right now prostitutes are allowed to operate on the streets because society knows that the problem cannot be wiped out. If it were legalised through brothels then it would be far easier to reduce street prostitutes to a tiny minimum imho.
Would every prostitute be legal ? Of course not. But not every car driver has a license to drive... that isn't much of an argument against licenses. It would improve the situation enormously for all sides of the situation and that is what matters in my opinion.

I'm afraid your summary is severely misguided. It seems by your attitude towards me that you are either a troll or a fanatic. Either way I don't think anything I say will make difference to you, but I haven't seen any arguement from you at all, just snide remarks.

You clearly cannot deal with direct argument and expect your claimed knowledge to be a ticket to acceptance of your views. Well it isn't.

chill

Will brothels be reputable? Hard to say. We won't know unless it actually happens.

Legality isn't a guarentee of reputability. Look at any other commercial activity.

I don't really believe media hype, but there is some question over the running of lap dancing and strip clubs in Ireland now that they are legal. If these are being run in a dodgy fashion then I'd be highly dubious about brothels.

But lapdancing clubs are not licensed or monitored, to the best of my knowledge. That is a completely different kettle of fish.

Secondly, will there be soliciting in bars and clubs? It occurs on other countries where prostitution is legal (and some where its not) so its hard to see it being stopped here. Whatever about reputable brothels, this is where the problem lies.

I don't agree at all. The problem lies with the fact that there is no structure for prostitutes to operate within the law and within a healthy monitored system. Legalisation would never solve all problems. No one claims it would. But is is self evident that it would be a vast improvement, as it has been where it has been legalised.

I find it very hard to believe, that anyone inclinced to use a prostitute, at 4am in the morning after 7 pints, will ask that eastern european blonde to see her licence.

I find that an astonishing point of view. I believe any non brain dead man looking for a prostitute would prefer to visit a legal brothel where he would be with a clean prostitute who is working as a professional, in comfortable and clean surroundings. I don't see the sense in your argument. Naturally there will be exceptions, but that doesn't change the weight of the argument.

GuanYin

Originally posted by chill
This isn't a question and answer forum. You argue your point, I'll argue mine and that's how it works. If you can't cope with that then maybe you should leave it alone.

You still haven't made an arguments. All you have done is stated that you disagree with mine.

Originally posted by chill

I'd be fascinated to know the basis on which you claim a Health Board doesn't include the Government taxes in their budgets.

If you get a budget of 40K to stock a lab you still pay 21% VAT on all purchases you make with the 40K.
That is the point I am making.

Originally posted by chill
You claimed that the costs would overwhelm. I pointed out that it would be spread out somewhat and you have no answer.

You don't know the bit where they plan to do away with Health Boards then?

All the hospitals that are capable are in the cities where prostitution is an issue. Are you really expecting to send someone to Cork from Dublin for a check up? If you employer told you you need to have a medical to have your contract renewed but had to make your way to another city to haveit done, I'd imagine you'd kick up a fuss. Do you expect prostitutes to be different?

Originally posted by chill
New staff are not a serious problem and nurses are perfectly capable of taking samples. Anyone with medial knowledge would know that.
Hence the claim that this is a major problem doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

New staff are a problem. At present the health sector is understaffed. If they don't have enough staff at present, how will they have staff for more services?

Nurses can take samples. But who carries out the examination? Who deals with a class 3 pathogen in a lab?

Originally posted by chill
50million was found last week for additional handicapped services. I doubt if there would be a problem getting a couple of million for a tiny percentage increase in testing.

Really? Why aren't you minister for health so. I hope so, although if we could find even more money, I can think of several other priorities?

Originally posted by chill

More questions that you should know the answers to if you have your claimed knowledge..

I know the answers.
However if you re-read the post you will see I was asking if you knew?
If you do, can you please demonstrate it by applying it to the previous point you made?
(you said, that without waiting lists the country would be bankrupt)

Originally posted by chill

You claimed that the Health System is overwhelmed based on the existence of waiting lists. I took issue and pointed out that this was a nonsensical basis on whcih to make such a pronouncement. It's quite simple...

Waiting lists and overworked staff and lack of hospitals and facilites.

You also said that "Well it's quite a nonsensical viepoint to hold that means that a health system is by definition not coping if there are people on waiting lists. I hope we are never so stupid that we try to establish a health service with zero waiting lists. It would bankrupt the country."

Could you explain how waitinglists and our national finance are negatively related (I'll settle for the health system finance)?



Actually
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your tripe.

You are just trolling to annoy me.

I have explained all my points. You just keep saying I'm wrong and have not displayed any facts that contradict what I am saying.

Get a life.

GuanYin

Originally posted by chill
Naturally there will be exceptions, but that doesn't change the weight of the argument.

The nature of epidemiology is you only need one exception to cause a problem.

BKtje

Its all very well saying that sensible people will look out for their well being. But believe me, the world just doesn't work like that.

I'd have to agree with chill that even at 4am any one with any kind of comon sense would go to a licensed clean brothel instead of some dodgy prostitute ona street corner. There are of course exceptions.

GuanYin

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
I'd have to agree with chill that even at 4am any one with any kind of comon sense would go to a licensed clean brothel instead of some dodgy prostitute ona street corner. There are of course exceptions.

What about one in a night club or bar?


The problem regards public health is as I see it down to three things.

1. How often does the average sexually active person have an STI check (I know the answer to this.. once every 3 years)

2. Would every prostitute be guarenteed to have safe sex with clients (llegal and illegal ones)

3. Would the amount of people liable to use prostitutes increase if it became legal.

I think (my personal opinion, chill, I'm allowed have one, ok?) that the answers to two and three are no and yes.

Depending on the frequency of unprotected sex any infected person had and that of the people they pass the disease onto, we may see a health problem.

Now, this potential already exisits, but as for point 3, if it increases (and come on...there were strip clubs before they were legalised but it wasn't until they were leaglised that you had stag parties going to them) then so does the risk.


As for men having common sense? I disagree. When you work in a casualty ward you really see how little common sense people have.

BKtje

What about one in a night club or bar?

They exist now so i don't see the problem.

1. How often does the average sexually active person have an STI check (I know the answer to this.. once every 3 years)

Im sorry but i don't see the relevance.

2. Would every prostitute be guarenteed to have safe sex with clients (llegal and illegal ones)

No probably not but if she was checked every 3 months then the possibility for spreading the disease is minimised. Imo it would be more up to the Prostitute to ensure that it was practiced..just like its up to Taxi drivers to ensure people wear their seatbelts.

3. Would the amount of people liable to use prostitutes increase if it became legal.

It probably would, i've stated this all along but is this really such a bad thing? Does it really effect the people who don't want this legalised in any way other than that it takes (most of)the prostitutes off the street?

Depending on the frequency of unprotected sex any infected person had and that of the people they pass the disease onto, we may see a health problem.

We have that anway, i doubt that there would be any more of a health problem than there is now. More people might use the services but the prostitutes would more often than not be 'safer'.

it wasn't until they were leaglised that you had stag parties going to them

I highly doubt stag parties would go to them, theres alarge difference between looking and touching as everyone should know but your point is taken onboard. I still dont see the problem tho.

but as for point 3, if it increases (snip) then so does the risk.

Not if they get regular check ups and procedures are followed, they would infact decline as i've argued throughout this thread.

It seems more that you don't want prostitution to be legalised for more reasons than just medical grounds. (if this has been part of your argument throughout i apologise for missing it)