Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes

Though Im not a fan of prostitution for moral reasons, I find that Holmes orgininal statement in this thread to be thoughtful and logical. Excellent post.Just to add a new twist to the debate, let's say that the reason for prostitution is not because of past sexual abuse, but to support a dangerous drug habit. Im not talking about your casual Mary Jane user, but your hard core, two dollar crack whore. Is prostitution still victimless when a crack baby is born? I don't need to paint any graphic pictures for all of us to agree that the details are pretty gruesome.Now, before the hammer drops on me, I'm not saying that this is the case with every prostitute on the strip, but the odds are that there are more crack whores on the street than responsible, clean, money earning, republican prostitues that Holmes is talking about..Any thoughts?

quote:

---

I might also point out that even if I were to accept the "crack baby" argument, it would only apply to women as prostitutes. There are men in the prostitution trade as well as women (gigolos and "male prostitutes"), and many may have drug habits as well.

---

I agree. My argument does only apply to women as prostitues. I suspected you might emphasize the drug use more than the prostitution as the source of the problem. I can agree that it's the drugs that made the CRACK baby, but it is the prostitution that made crack BABY, if you catch my meaning.I thought you might concede that prostitution is not COMPLETELY victimless because in this particular scenario, the child is definitely a victim.