The US should decriminalize prostitution

Pro argues that one can rationally choose to have sex, and lists several potential examples where this is the case. However, all of them have one thing in common: reason is not necessary for them to be so. There is nothing inherent in any of the examples Pro gives that requires rationality - it's perfectly reasonable to imagine a non-rational entity with free will (e.g. a schizophrenic) justifying sex with any of these reasons. Given this, reason must not be necessary for any of these intentions, and therefore reason is not present in the intentions themselves at all (for if it was, they could not be conceived of outside of rational beings). My opponent argues that, since no sex would result in no society, the resulting lack of freedom would be worse than the lack of freedom caused by sex. However, there is a distinction to be made between destroying the freedom of already-existing entities and stopping a potential for freedom from actualizing. The lives of people who are living are plainly more significant than the lives of people who are not even people yet - how can you say that a nonentity will be negatively affected by anything? The statement would be meaningless due to the lack of identity of its subject. As such, if one is to crusade against lacks of freedom, one must look only to the actual and not to the potential, rendering this objection impotent. Re: Sex is not Slavery because it Does Not Restrict ChoicesIf one is drinking water, he cannot be simultaniously drinking milk, no matter how hard he tries to will reality to allow it. In the actual act of sex, one cannot do anything but have sex. This is pretty much a tautology - if one is having sex, one is wholly unfree to choose to not have sex at the same exact time as he is having sex. Therefore, there is some limit placed on freedom by having sex, thus totally negating this section of my opponent's rebuttal just by showing that it, at face value, is literally inaccurate. My opponent is making the mistake of taking "freedom" to mean "being able to choose between alternatives" and nothing more. What he fails to mention is that, by that definition, slavery would be freedom, given that, in any slave camp, one is able to decide how to act, look (to an extent), speak, etc. Even the choice between picking one piece of cotton or another first shows that one can choose between alternatives. Therefore, unless my opponent wishes to contradict Mill, the man who he is basing his argument upon, and one of his most important points, he must recognize that freedom must mean more than just unqualified choice.It is clear that the difference between a slave and a free man is that the slave is unable to live qua man - he is not able to excercise his rational faculties in all situations (since reason and force cannot coexist), and, since it is those faculties which make man man, he is reduced to the subhuman. He is, in essense, committing suicide of the soul because of this. If this is true, then irrationality is the basis for slavery (and thereforer philosophical suicide), and therefore any irrational act is, in itself, a denial of freedom (and, as such, may be rightfully restricted by a just government). This restriction of irrational acts is not, in itself, a restriction of freedom, anymore so than putting ice in a drink is a restriction of its coldness - it's quite the opposite, since the alternative is not a "choice to not make further choices according to man's nature", but rather just "the absence of man's nature in the man".I must ask: is the statement "You cannot follow geometrical rules and still draw a square with four sides" a "restriction" on what one can do and still be geometrically accurate, or just a recognization of the fact that, if you ignore the advice, the result will be not-geometry? Even if it is some kind of restriction (this is irrelevant), the latter is still incredibly important to recognize. "Freedom to be unfree" is nonsense, since such a freedom would just be non-freedom, while a truely rational freedom would run into no such self-negation.