You’re wrong. What you describe is not at all common American values. It may well have beent he experience of dysfunctiona; families, but you know, yourself, that it wasn’t the expression of common American values. A survey that asked if that scenario represented common American values wouldn’t get enough “yes” answers to get into double digits.
And you know that. So stop.
Well, what other objective measure of morality is there? My say-so?
Prostitution is immoral because even without enslavement, it’s coercion, drug addiciton or even needing the money drives women to do that which they would otherwise not do. It’s loveless sex that exploits women.
And of course it should be illegal. Are we an immoral country?
So should all things immoral be outlawed? We can’t have an immoral country, it just shouldn’t happen.
OK, now you’ve introduced another variable: Practicality.
So, answer my earlier question. Should cheating on your spouse* be illegal? There’s nothing more impractical about prosecuting that crime than there is prosecuting prostitution.
I’m willing to accept that you, and the majority of Americans, believe prostitution is immoral. I also think that you, and the majority of Americans, believe cheating on your spouse is immoral. Hence, cheating on your spouse should be illegal.
*Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that cheating on your spouse means having sex with another partner-- or, any activity with another partner that would land you in trouble with the law if you engaged in that activty with a prostitute.
Well said.
And I’d add that illegal wiretapping is immoral because it provides the government with a dangerous precedent that it could use to perpetuate its own powers and gather damaging information on innocent citizens. It ought to be illegal because it is practical and doing so would not be an infringement of the rights of individuals. Just because I’m not entirely convinced that this thread really is about prostitution.
But just in case it is:
I’ll also differ from most of the posters and say that I believe that prostitutution is entirely moral (or at least, of neutral morality), as much as washing floors or recreational sex is. However, I believe that the potential for abuse or the sexual slavery Revtim refers to is high enough that I’m not entirely convinced that prostitution ought to be legally tolerated at all. Pimps would be able to hide under a veneer of legality while still abusing their employees, or else society would grow to tolerate abused illegal
In that way, I think it’s sometimes right for the government to ban an act that’s not immoral, in order to more ably prevent a greater evil.
It’s not enough. “Most people in the US think it’s immoral” isn’t an argument, since it used to be true, for say, masturbation. “Its the tradition” doesn’t cut it.
There must be a reason why you think it’s immoral, and you should elaborate so that we could know where you’re coming from. “Because I feel like it” would be as valid as “I think homosexual sex is immoral because I find it disgusting”.
The two reason I would suspect in your case would be “Because I’m a believer and God said so” or “Because women who prostitute themselves are severely harmed as a result”. Obviously, the first one isn’t open to discussion, while the second one can be argued against.
Fast food working is immoral because even without enslavement, it’s coercion, drug addiciton or even needing the money drives people to do that which they would otherwise not do. It’s joyless labor that exploits people.
And of course it should be illegal. Are we an immoral country?
You said you were a practicing Catholic, aren’t you supposed to get your morals from the church, and not public opinion polls?
It is not necessarily any of those things, and would likely be less those things if it were legal.
“needing the money drives women to do that which they would otherwise not do” describes a lot of people who hold any job. Should my job a couple years ago installing locks in construction sites, in the Florida summer heat, be made illegal because I only did it for the money?
And the idea that because it involves loveless sex is should be illegal is pretty amusing.
If there was a cathouse that had well-paid well-treated unionized sex workers that could quit anytime they wanted, would that also be immoral? Or is that somehow impossible because vaginas are involved?
So do most jobs. Or would people who didn’t need to earn money slave away in cubicles getting carpal tunnel for the fun of it? Is it the sex is involved?
What about dating, is that immoral as well? A wife giving her husband a blowjob if he mows the lawn? A wife giving her husband a blowjob if he’s nice to her and makes her feel loved and appreciated? Or is it just if cash changes hands for a specific service?
But this is immaterial, as your basic premise is fatally flawed. There is no objective standard of morality in this case, as you sort of aluded to. And as you seem to have ignored, if other countries don’t view it as immoral then in those countries it’s nor immoral. QED. (right?)
We should not legislate a tyrany of the majority in order to punish consenting adults who dare to violate the puritanical morality of how ever many people might get their faces all pinched over the issue.
Prostitution, like suicide, is moral. It is a crime which harms no-one, provided certain elementary precautions are taken. As there is no harm, and some amount of benefit, it should be no crime. Crimes are those things which harm persons, places, things, or society. Clearly, sex does not harm society, or there would be many fewer members of it. Therefore, it must be the economic nature of the sex that is criminal in theory. Is it illegal to hire any other sort of labor, provided all other elements are legal? (such as ability to work in the country?) No. Therefore, there should be no reason to outlaw one, specific sort of labor, to perform a task that would, if unpaid, be legal.
If a woman enjoys racing cars, and can find a job doing it, good for her.
If a woman enjoys having sex for money, and can find a job doing it, good for her. Why, there are women who do it today! They’re called porn stars. Jenna Jameson, for example. They may be rare, perhaps, but in this modern, liberated, equal world, why not?
Like pot, the aura of criminality around prostitution is largely a matter of the existing illegality. The whorehouses in Nevada are not horrible places, as I understand it, and from what I have heard from the working girls, it’s not a bad job. (I listen to Howard Stern, and he has had interviews with women who work there on occasion.)
Were tobacco as illegal as pot, were stripping as illegal as prostitution, or were it the other way around, issues would, probably, be reversed for them. (I know a number of girls who stripped to pay for college. They felt a bit sleazy at the start, but no lasting harm, and some really felt it made them understand the human condition more afterwards.)
How’s that, Bricker?
Wait a second! All of a sudden, 31 posts into the thread, it now seems like you’re trying to discuss the issue. In your OP you claimed that it was impossible to do that. And here I tried to be supportive of your belief; I feel personally betrayed. For that matter, why even post this topic in Great Debates, instead of MPSIMS or ATMB, if you didn’t think it could be discussed?
"One fat client reeked of Bengay ointment. Afterward, she threw up. "
That’s got to be immoral.
Ahh, a formal argumentum ad lapidem, with a little ad populum on the side. 
Didn’t expect to see many of these around here.
Bricker, you’ll need to put together a better argument than that. What principles do you use to assess something as moral or immoral, and what are the details of how your assessment is applied to prostitution? “Something is immoral if I say it’s immoral” is not a position that anyone can argue against, nor is it a position that anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion should adopt.
Bricker has repeatedly asked whether we are an immoral country. Perhaps we should discuss whether it is moral to send somebody to prison. Prison is a horrible place. Physical force rules, whther from the guards or the other inmates. Freedoms and privileges that we count on to make our lives livable simply do not exist there. Rape is quite common. Is it moral to send someone to prison for engaging in consensual sex with another adult?
I read that article in the Post’s print edition yesterday. It seems to me that most of the abuses–and they were horiffic–came about because prostitution is a criminal enterprise, not because of anything inherent in trading sex for money, which is little different from what Donald Trump and his Bride of the day do. Once you criminalize anything the people who run the business are going to be, well, criminals. Violent, abusive, dangerous people.
The only way to eliminate prostitution would be with Taliban style laws coupled with pervasive high-tech surveilance. Seems to me the cure would be worse than the disease. The better option is to bring the practice into the light of day, with well-regulated government inspected brothels.
As far as the abusive pimps in the article though, by all means throw them in jail on charges of assault, kidnapping, and extortion. Sentence them to very long prison terms. What human waste they are.
I don’t agree with the premise that government is responsible for enforcing morality. It may be responsible for enforcing justice and ensuring people who pose dangers to other people are either rehabilitated or removed from society. But morality? I believe that is overextending its mandate.
If we have two people who without coercion decide that one would like to purchase a sex act from the other and they perform this transaction I don’t have any moral issues with it. Even if the majority of people disagree with me and believe this is immoral, I do not believe this is sufficient motivation to make the act illegal. In the example above, it simply does not affect them in any way and is none of their business. No party is wronged. If you happen to believe that this act is immoral, then you are perfectly free to decide not to engage in it. I do not believe you have the right to tell other people not to engage in it.
I also do not see why a society where 20% of the population wants to engage in an immoral act but cannot due to the law is any more moral than a society where 20% of the population engages in an immoral act.
A case can be made where there is coercion, but it is the coercion that is key. Similar laws would apply to forcing someone to clean my house against their will.
And in the spirit of making absolute statements and denying any debate, the above is completely correct and discussion is impossible. 
May he who is perfect cast the first stone.
How very odd. Did you not state that morality is not the same as legal (and should not be) in another thread? And yet, here you seem to be claiming that the two should coincide exactly, minus “practical” considerations. Curiouser and curiouser…
Such an apparently contradictory stance might be worthy of discussion, if such a thing were possible.
**Bricker ** contains multitudes.
Here’s what I find curious:
Bricker believes that all immoral activity should be illegal. He further bases his views on what is moral and immoral on his Catholic faith. Catholic doctrine teaches that all people are sinners, i.e., engage in immoral behaviour.
Therefore, Bricker believes that all people should be subject to legal sanctions (what form those should take would obviously be subject to concerns about practicality - obviously not everyone can be jailed, so perhaps fines or the like should be used for lesser offences).
I agree. Given the premises here, there’s little point in discussion.