Points 4. and 5. are sound. They are however part of an overall scheme of decriminalizing/legitimizing prostitution. I can support points 4. and 5. but I can't support the overall aim of your proposal.
I don't know how many times I can say that I don't support the status quo. I really don't know why you want to insist that I am somehow happy to see prostitutes live and die in the gutter.
The approach of criminalising the client has proved popular in Sweden but doubts are being expressed.
It looks like an approach that is ideologically satisfying for the vast majority who are not involved one way or the other but makes little or no difference to the reality.
Let's assume you're not a utilitarian; your reply is presumably that experimentation on unwilling subjects is wrong (for some given understanding of wrong), and wrongful actions should not be permitted just on account of the fact that they have the effect of reducing overall misery. So, ultimately, your claim is that experimentation on unwilling subjects is wrong, and prostitution is not.
My way would mean that those you feel they want to involve themselves in this trade will do so in regulated places with protected and regulated prostitutes, who's health is being looked after, and who is being encouraged and helped to leave the 'trade' if they wish to do so. Meanwhile the supply for the underground trade dries up and no more women are trafficked.
No problem. Respond as you wish or not at all.
It remains illuminating that you have no apparent answer to the disabled's calls for prostitution services that do not criminalise them, nor indeed for the fact that feminist academics also choose freely without coercion to work in prostitution.