Dang right they can; considerably more than CPA's. :D:D

:laugh:

I knew I should have been a lawyer.

Public indecency/lewd behavior is a separate issue, IMO, from prostitution.

 

His point is that many of these transactions are happening in public.

The problem with prostitution is that AIDS isnt the only thing you can get. Herpes, gonorrhea, HPV, syphyllis, and Hepatitis to mention only a few. Herpes (as we all know from TV) can be spread with no symptom. AIDS and Hepatitis have a long window of time when you can have it and spread it, before you test positive. Some never have any symptoms at all. The more sexually active you are the greater the risk of developing and spreading one or more of these diseases. Simple as that.

 

Yes, women may have the right to do what they want with their bodies, but they do not have the right to give the gift that "keeps on giving." From a health standpoint, I think it should be illegal. Prostitution can potentially affect the entire community, and certainly affect those who have no involvement in prostitution.

 

Yep, I agree that it is a profession that is not going to go away. But to legalize it and make it legit would do more harm to the general public in the long run, IMO.

 

If it was legalized, couldn't there be regulations requiring regular health screens of the providers to minimize those concerns? I have never been to Nevada but aren't the providers required to undergo regular health exams? As you pointed out, its not going to go away, and wouldn't we actually improve the health issues if it was regulated?

 

If health concerns are a valid reason to be opposed to legalized prostitution, can someone (not saying you) support gay "marriage" and sex (which from what I remember reading is the leading cause of the spread of AIDS) and its health risks, but not support legalized prostitution?

If it was legalized, couldn't there be regulations requiring regular health screens of the providers to minimize those concerns? I have never been to Nevada but aren't the providers required to undergo regular health exams? As you pointed out, its not going to go away, and wouldn't we actually improve the health issues if it was regulated?

 

If health concerns are a valid reason to be opposed to legalized prostitution, can someone (not saying you) support gay "marriage" and sex (which from what I remember reading is the leading cause of the spread of AIDS) and its health risks, but not support legalized prostitution?

 

If they will not presently follow the rules and laws of this country, WHY the assumption that you legalize it and all of a sudden put all of these rules and hoops they have to jump through, that they are going to follow them?

 

I can't see a person who is presently saying, "I ain't going to follow the laws on prostitution" say "O they legalized it, I better follow the rules now."

If they will not presently follow the rules and laws of this country, WHY the assumption that you legalize it and all of a sudden put all of these rules and hoops they have to jump through, that they are going to follow them?

 

I can't see a person who is presently saying, "I ain't going to follow the laws on prostitution" say "O they legalized it, I better follow the rules now."

Because now they can ply their trade legally. Make more money with less legal risk.

If it was legalized, couldn't there be regulations requiring regular health screens of the providers to minimize those concerns? I have never been to Nevada but aren't the providers required to undergo regular health exams? As you pointed out, its not going to go away, and wouldn't we actually improve the health issues if it was regulated?

 

If health concerns are a valid reason to be opposed to legalized prostitution, can someone (not saying you) support gay "marriage" and sex (which from what I remember reading is the leading cause of the spread of AIDS) and its health risks, but not support legalized prostitution?

 

As I said before, "regular" health screenings do not always pick up diseases in their early stages when they can still be spread. It can take 6-12 months to convert to HIV positive status, yet you can still spread it disease during that time. How often would people have to be tested? You would almost have to do it monthly to insure a minimum amount of exposure to the general population. And, it is just not AIDS, but a laundry list of diseases that would have to be tested for at the same time.

 

I dont really understand the gay marriage comparison. If gay couple is monogamous, they are not at risk of spreading the disease. I believe that early in the AIDS crisis, gay people were the highest risk group, but I dont think that is true anymore. Unprotected sex with multiple partners, gay or straight, is the biggest risk.

If they will not presently follow the rules and laws of this country, WHY the assumption that you legalize it and all of a sudden put all of these rules and hoops they have to jump through, that they are going to follow them?

 

I can't see a person who is presently saying, "I ain't going to follow the laws on prostitution" say "O they legalized it, I better follow the rules now."

 

 

I understand your reasoning, but like Dad think that if it was legalized and they made more money, they'd be willing to comply. Of course there is the definite possibility that if a provider was sidelined due to a problem, she would work illegally. But if the rules stated that if she did so, she'd be forever banned from doing it legally, she might not be as tempted to do it illegally. Plus I wonder how much business she'd get if her customers had the option of going to a legal prostitute. While I know that I would not go to a prostitute, I also know that if I was going to use a prostitute and I had my choice of going to a legal one that received medical checkups or an illegal one that either wasn't going to checkups or was sidelined because she had failed a check up, it would be a no brainer decision for me.

 

Beechwoodfan, I missed that part of your post. Sorry about that. Frankly I wasn't aware of the dormant stage associated with the diseases. Trusting you are accurate, you raise a good point. Anyone know what the "track record" of spread STDs is with the legal brothels in Nevada and Europe?

 

And my post has gotten off point; the thread was more about the question of whether there is a philosophical dilemna of being for abortion and against prostitution.

Just think how many fewer uninsured people we'd have "walking the streets."

I understand your reasoning, but like Dad think that if it was legalized and they made more money, they'd be willing to comply. Of course there is the definite possibility that if a provider was sidelined due to a problem, she would work illegally. But if the rules stated that if she did so, she'd be forever banned from doing it legally, she might not be as tempted to do it illegally. Plus I wonder how much business she'd get if her customers had the option of going to a legal prostitute. While I know that I would not go to a prostitute, I also know that if I was going to use a prostitute and I had my choice of going to a legal one that received medical checkups or an illegal one that either wasn't going to checkups or was sidelined because she had failed a check up, it would be a no brainer decision for me.

 

Beechwoodfan, I missed that part of your post. Sorry about that. Frankly I wasn't aware of the dormant stage associated with the diseases. Trusting you are accurate, you raise a good point. Anyone know what the "track record" of spread STDs is with the legal brothels in Nevada and Europe?

 

And my post has gotten off point; the thread was more about the question of whether there is a philosophical dilemna of being for abortion and against prostitution.

On the bolded.....

Isn't it illegal now and they are doing it?? Why do you think banning her for life is somehow going to make her not do it?

 

Since it is illegal to do now, aren't they technically banned from life???

 

I agree that there is a double standard. Pro Abortion people say it is a women's right to do with her body what she wants. But she cannot be a prostitute. That is denying her what she wants to do with her own body.

 

I think that is a poor argument for the prochoice crowd since this society has already established in several different ways that we can tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.