Should prostitution be legalized?

Prostitution shouldnt be legalized simply because of moral degradation and because most women have been forced to do it. So it shouldnt even be allowed.

I thank OLAN for this debate.

==Defitinitions: ==

Prostitution: The act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

== CON ARGUMENTS ==

"moral degradation"

--> For whom? It only affects the morality of both users who partake in the activity, who are clearly willing to partake in the activity. Therefore, any moral degradation is the sole fault of either user.

"most women have been forced to do it"

--> The act itself requires agreement from both parties for whatever agreed activities. The woman can of course opt to not do it, and that will have its repercussions. If the woman is forced that's rape, not prostitution.

== PRO ARGUMENTS ==

ECONOMIC BENEFITS:

If Prostitution was legalised, the government could regulate it and tax it. It would create more revenue for the government through this. Furthermore, it would add another legal market to the economy and lead for a bigger economy for the nation which legalises it.

The legalisation of Prostitution has benefited many countries which legalised it economically

"The prostitution industry accounts for 5% of the GDP of the Netherlands, between 1 and 3% of Japanese GDP and in 1998, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that prostitution accounted for between 2 and 14% of the total economic activity in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines" - http://sisyphe.org...

WORKER BENEFITS:

The legalisation of prostitution would lead to better working conditions for prostitutes. The legalisation of prostitution has led to better health conditions in countries which legalise it, such as Senegal:

"In Senegal, HIV prevalence among pregnant women has been below 1% for more than a decade. A strong multisectoral response, an effective STD control programme and early legalization of prostitution have been credited for this low level. Special clinical services, for example, offer regular examination and treatment for registered sex workers. Not only has there been a significant decline in STD rates among sex workers and pregnant women between 1991 and 1996, but genital ulcers are also no longer common and chancroid is reportedly rare." http://www.liberator.net...

SOCIETAL BENEFITS:

There is a general reduction in violence and criminal activities with the legalisation of prostitution, and a lower crime rates in accordance with the level of punishment given to prostitution.

"It is unknown if there is a correlation between laws that prohibit sex and higher crime rates, but the reverse appears to be more enlightening. The countries where prostitution is legal do not suffer from a high number of violent crimes." - http://www.liberator.net...

These are my argument for the first round, and I reserve the right to make more. Thank you, and back to my opponent.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. First of all it is the degradation of the woman that matters when it comes to prostitution. There can be no benefits at all, especially in terms of sexually transmittable diseases. Sure, HIV has been reduced because of prostitution being legal in other countries but what about diseases like the clap,clymidia,herpes,etc. And yes there are repercussions for refusing,but isnt that theyre right as women and as Americans? So i ask you what good can come for prostitution? Nothing. Back to my opponent.

I thank my opponent for his response.

"First of all it is the degradation of the woman that matters when it comes to prostitution"

--> My opponent has merely stated this and has not expanded upon it, nor has he rebutted my point on it.

"HIV has been reduced because of prostitution being legal in other countries but what about diseases like the clap,clymidia,herpes,etc"

--> My link specifically states "Not only has there been a significant decline in STD rates among sex workers and pregnant women between 1991 and 1996, but genital ulcers are also no longer common and chancroid is reportedly rare". This point is refuted.

"yes there are repercussions for refusing,but isnt that theyre right as women and as Americans"

--> Of course it's their right, and they have a choose to refuse to engage in prostitution if they nominate to do so.

"So i ask you what good can come for prostitution? Nothing. "

--> My opponent has ignored most of my points in my first round, and I have refuted his points. Therefore, I extend my unrefuted arguments.

Back to my opponent.

I thank my opponent for pointing out my errors. "Foremost, it is argued that prostitution is an immoral practice, and thus should be against the law in the United States. That clearly denies the resolution,but let us expand it a little further. An estimated 39% of women are prostitutes. Why? Because they were forced into it against their will. Another excerpt states:"Opponents of the morality position would claim that the job of the government is not to legislate morality." Well then why is there a Senate or a House of representatives?. I hate to see the day that prostitution is legalized in the supreme court. The Founding Fathers didnt use women for their advances. They loved their wives and treated them with respect. Most women become prostitutes simply because of domestic violence or adultery. So i ask you why should prostitution be legalized?

I thank my opponent for his response.

" "Foremost, it is argued that prostitution is an immoral practice, and thus should be against the law in the United States"
--> I would ask my opponent for his source of this statement, otherwise it is not backed by evidence.

"An estimated 39% of women are prostitutes"

--> I again would ask my opponent the source of this statistic. Even if this is true, it simply means the government is oppressing a huge minority of women, and denying a huge potential economic sector a chance to make a country money.

"Why? Because they were forced into it against their will. "

-- Again, there's no source for this, but women can always opt out of a legalised and regulated form of prostitution, something illegal prostitution often doesn't. And even if it is against their will, a lot of people aspire to make money without being employed, and in that sense employment is against their will, but they do it for money.

"The Founding Fathers didnt use women for their advances. They loved their wives and treated them with respect."

--> The founding fathers are not an infallible source of information. Times have changed since then, and thus society should progress as well.

"Most women become prostitutes simply because of domestic violence or adultery"

--> Again, there is no evidence to back this statement.

I extend my unrefuted arguments. Back to my opponent.

My source is:http://chelm.freeyellow.com... which has credible information on prostitution and its effects on people and the world in general. 2nd of all my 39% is estimated. So in conclusion prostitution shouldnt be legalized simply because of moral and women degredation. Back to my opponent.

I thank my opponent for his response, and for this debate.

The point my opponent has taken from his source are as follows:

"Foremost, it is argued that prostitution is an immoral practice, and thus should be against the law in the United States."

"Opponents of the morality position would claim that the job of the government is not to legislate morality."

The first quote has no statistics. My opponent has no proven how it is immoral, or by what standard it is immoral.

The second quote is in fact in favour of the legalisation of prostitution.

"So in conclusion prostitution shouldnt be legalized simply because of moral and women degredation."

--> My opponent has not proven in this debate how this is true. He ha not refuted most of my argument, and the points he has have been in turn refuted by me.

In conclusion, legalising prostitution will have a net positive effect on the economy, society, and the workers involved in prostitution.

I again thank my opponent for this debate