Prostitution do more harm than good

First, I am grateful for Pro completing the debate. Two in a row without forfeit! If this gets votes, I'll have to have a DDO party or something. My primary contention in this debate has been whether it's reasonable for person X to make value judgements for person Y. It would seem that the standard to be applied in judging whether this acceptable should be quite high. We would not want to grant such a privilege lightly if we value individual freedom and autonomy. There is an unwritten rule of trust we all place in each other. Think about your average day where you see this play out: you drive down a road 60 mph with cars coming at you few feet over at the same speed. If a car were to swerve over, passengers in both cars would likely die. Yet millions of us carry on doing this, despite the fact that more than 30,000 die on the roads each year on the United States. So, it would appear that, as a society, we place a high value on freedom and this value should be considered in these arguments. So, what reasons does Pro give for breaking this rule of trust, specifically regarding prostitution? It would appear there are two things: one, consumers don't know the consequences of their actions and two, these actions could harm others unless policies are in place to prevent such harm. Pro appears to have dropped arguments centered around drug use and violence. Therefore, if I can address the remaining two concerns, it would seem a vote for Con is warranted. Do customers of prostitutes know the consequences of their actions? It doesn't seem Pro has given any evidence that they don't. When someone makes a purchase, they will try to understand what they are getting. People generally don't just throw money away. Clients of prostitutes know the risk they are taking just as a smoker knows of lung cancer. They are willing to take this risk, just as I take a risk every day driving to work, or a deep-sea oil rig worker takes risks in his profession. Why is soliciting prostitution any different? Pro has not said. Perhaps Pro feels a moral damage to society as a whole, but this position assumes uniform morals across society. Pro has given no reason why we should accept that, and has not argued on a moral basis. So what of the harm to others? The only argument left is that prostitution may increase the spread of STD's. Regarding this issue, I have to say, I had trouble understanding Pro's arguments in the last round. Also, Pro's information on STD's is not backed with any sourced information. The issue of STD's is what economists would call a negative externality - that is, the activity of one entity having negative external affect on others. Another example of this would be pollution. However, would Pro claim that automobiles, factories and (the worlds worst polluter) the military, provide more harm than good due to this one factor? Lastly, not as a form of argument, but just for the sake of posterity: it is my opinion that opponents of prostitution's real basis of objection is morality. I have shown the weakness of the claimed objections, and several analogies where moral issues are not at play and there is no similar objection. The only factor left is morality. So proponents of prostitution ultimately claim the right to impose their system of morality on others.