Legal prostitution ?   I'll make a wild a$$ assumption and assume that we're  discussing sexual prostitution versus moral, ethical, political, etc. prostitution .
In many places where it is legal, such as in Nevada (except Clark and Washoe counties) or overseas (Amsterdam), regulations require frequent health inspections.  That does make it slightly safer than areas where a "john" may end up with undesired consequences up to and including a trip to the medical examiner due to stab wounds, blunt instruments etc.     Of course prostitution exist on many levels. From the "eye candy" hanging on the high roller's arm, the porn star to the addict turning tricks to support their habit....               I do not regard it as a "victim less" crime. VD, pimps, drug trafficking, and are a few of the side effects.  It is a dirty, degrading business for all involved.  

Sharky's Machine... great movie.  Burt's best.
Ward's voice melts butter...

Jog.....

I got the thrust of your question when you posed it.
You are trying to understand why the left says they are pro women w/ their stance/argument, that its their body, re: abortion, yet they allow the laws against prostitution govern these same women on this sex matter.

It's simple dude, they see it as a loser that would cost them votes.
Nothing more to it than that.
You see/saw how they abandon women who bring charges of sexual misconduct against Willie, yet drag Clearance Thomas through the grinder over sexual talk.
Not one mention of rape against him, yet....

Its all about what they think will empower them ( the politician ) issues really are only a tool. Nothing more.
You saw how Senator Obama was against raising the debt ceiling, etc, then in office said it was ok, and lashed out at those who now found themselves against it.
Ditto Hillary, it was cool and patriotic to speak against Dubya, but against Her and Bo, you become a divisive obstructionist that ruins this country....
This is why you will never get a straight answer to a question buddy.
I think you know this already  

I will answer you question however, strictly on merit, aside from my "beliefs".

We already have legalized and regulated prostitution.
It is called sex surrogate, and it is mostly used under the medical/psychological banner.

I see no reason why it could not expand in the hopes it might help some, with sexual addictions, get their fix without having to support an otherwise seamy business fraught with all sorts of baggage.

As with anything of this sort of nature, it would produce new problems presently unrealized. It would be up to the regulating agencies to address these matters as they arise.
It is sorta like legalizing bars. We are saying its OK to drink, yet, most folk have to drive there. Now when they leave, well, you get my point, we have now just set up a scenario for unintended consequences, on totally innocent folks.

One thing that comes to mind with making sex legal, is the emotional attachment to "love" that many bridge under the same root of their persona.
Sorta of like how VETS get PTSD from combat, or some in the medical field, who deal with death daily, become desensitized to it in order to survive the emotional conflict of their job, which often exhibits itself elsewhere in a release, like alcohol or drug addictions/abuse ( I know some MD's personally that have battled this effect ).      

So buddy, I hope I have answered your question.
It is a societal equation, not moral, that folk need to weigh.
Does it produce more societal benefits, than it does negatives?

That is the question, eh?    

Serowbot wrote on 01/01/16 at 09:57:53:


Bot, I think you are reading Jogs original question wrong.
To me I read it as a "why is the left ok with the "it's a woman's body" argument ( which on its own is weak )  but ask why its not extended to the pro prostitution stance, removing women from the stigma of, and penalties  that befall them?
Of course your reference to the moral majority is correct, but moot, as they are consistent on their "moral" arguments against both prostitution and abortion.

You assume the left would be ....... supportive, but again, you have put the cart in front of the horse.
The question is as I understand it, "why haven't they"? yet.
Women are the ones who carry the burdens of crime,  on the present situation, why is this not a concern that gets ink?

I believe its a loser for them, or, they in fact are morally against it, as a party platform the way abortion is used to swat the right as what they believe pulls women voters into their camp.
I can see no other reason as to why, and I believe that was the spirit upon which Jog posed the question.

Feel free to explain why they choose one, under a certain reasoning, yet ignore another social issue that is very similar in nature and ramifications?

I'd like to hear it.....

 

Not that it's a forefront issue, but,... the strongest voices on the Left would be feminists calling for protections and decriminalization for prostitutes...  
This is a "Moral Majority", "700 Club" type issue... That's where the opposition is loudest.

I'm neither of those types. Fact is, your impression of those types is what the NYT, CNN and MSNBC tell you, but their understanding is no where near reality. I know many of those 'types' and they would argue against you until the cows came home but if you can to them for help, they'd hand it over. TV shows, nightly news always show the few wachos and try to make it seem like they are the majority, but I promise you, that is not the case. You argue that Muslims are unfairly characterized by the actions of a few; I suggest you apply that towards Christians.

I think every father of a daughter or grand daughter should be against this. If you fall into that category and you're not opposed to this, you should seriously be ashamed of yourself.

There will be no careful regulation, there will be no protection for the girls (and they will be girls). Affluent liberals who have girls will treat this like they do abortion and inner city gun deaths: "my girl will likely never be faced with this" so to them it will be an academic thought process, a partisan issue. They'll side with whomever The Today Show, Jimmy Fallon or TV sitcoms tell them to side with.

Liberal Christians will for the most part, do the same. They don't want to argue or take a vocal stand on anything;  that's why their liberal.

Serowbot wrote on 01/01/16 at 10:55:38:


Let me try this bot......

Does the democrat party favor prostitution, yes or no?

If no, why?

Yes or no?...

My point here is, I don't think the issue falls along distinctly political lines... Right or Left...
I don't speak for the Democratic Party... do you speak for the Republican Party?...
I see no stats or polls pointing either way...

I believe JOG is correct in saying the Constitution does not support criminalization.
I also personally believe there are fewer cons than pros to legalization...

That is not favoring prostitution... just as "pro-choice" is not favoring abortion...  or "pro-gun" is not favoring killing...

A stance on the legal right to do something is not condoning it.. it's just saying we as a nation have no right to criminalize it.

If decriminalization were put up to a national vote,... I believe the opposition would be stronger from the Right than the Left...

Prohibition didn't work... the war on drugs didn't work... criminalizing the sex trade hasn't worked...

That is my opinion... I'm sure you won't be satisfied with it...  
...but I think JOG will...