I hate that people have a purely punitive approach to this. They get to feel puritan with a semi-reasonable argument: sex work damages others! It damages children! And, for that they get to do anything, because now they want to "help children", and not what they're really doing, using violence against children to attempt to impose their own moral values on the world. What they're really doing ... that sounds a bit bad. But it sounds bad because it is bad. And let's ignore that organisations like the police or Child Services definitely have their share of people who merely want to use violence against children, for whatever reason, because those definitely exist.

Look at what these people DO! Are they improving child services for the children in there? No, of course not. These moral crusaders are, effectively, looking to punish children so they can look good and moral. Damaging real people, real children with real violence so society can look just a little closer to their moral ideal.

You see ... what determines if this is better or worse is the alternative. If you're really after the welfare of the child, what determines your position is the alternative ... What damages the child more? That's what matters for the moral position. Taking the child away, in India, leads to this:

https://borgenproject.org/orphans-in-india/

So no, a parent who's a sex worker is a LOT better.

That should be the basis for your moral position. It's all well and good to define an ideal and then blame people for not attaining perfection ... but of course we'd all be in jail if that's how we actually work. Is leaving children with sex workers ideal? No, but WE DON'T CARE ABOUT IDEAL. We care about the best possible situation for the child! And that, sorry, is definitely, without any doubt, letting sex workers raise children.

You want to change sex work? Offer these people some better options. And if you can't do that, for whatever reason, throwing the child into child services IS NOT a good second option.

And I would argue this applies to pretty much every country in the world, including the US. The situation of orphans may not be quite as bad as in India, it's certainly not better than living with (very) suboptimal parents, whether that means this or ...

And, frankly, that should be the only concern.

I didn't say it damages anything; I said it will be pretty hard talk to have and hard to manage situation, especially if it somehow leaks to the other kids, kids are cruel. And things that are hard can go bad easily.

"But the other job earning less money would be worse for kid!" is extremely one-dimensional view on that

And I'm not sure how your weird rant about child services is even related to that

> And I'm not sure how your weird rant about child services is even related to that

That's the only alternative you/society offers for these children. So that's what you should compare to. I get that you don't want to do that, because it totally demolishes your argument, but it still is the only alternative.

Someday I had to tell my kid that people have two mommies and some people have two daddies, and you know what? It was fine. You can abstract it for a kid until they are old enough to understand.