Children's Rights and Sex Industry

No one is forced to accept all of his/her rights. Nobody can be forced to defend his/her violated rights, but renunciation of rights is only allowed to the extent, that it's not against public order and the rights of others.
Article 6 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states: 

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

Interpretation: The term "all forms of" was used in the above article. Thus, this means that this article includes all the forms, whose natures are based upon trafficking in women (sex industry).
But surely the purpose of founding this convention as it's clear from its title is to eliminate discriminations against women, and this article is written to defend the rights of women. Therefore, since women's rights are of the rights of adult person, then they have the freedom to acceptance or renunciation of their rights.
Regarding children's rights, an article similar to this has been written over the rights of children which are attended by Convention of the Rights of the Child in article 34:

States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

The important point is, due to the low age of children, the fundamental responsibility of defending their rights, is on the shoulders of the society (the government, court, adopters etc.).Thus a child cannot renounce most of his/her rights. For example, a child cannot enter the pornography on his/her own will. In such cases, his/her will is invalid.
Considering that paragraph 1 article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following regarding the responsibilities of the parents or the keepers of the child:

States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

And article 21 of this same convention states the following on adoption:

States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…

And also paragraph (B), article 5 of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women states:

To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.

And paragraph (D), article 16 of this same convention which respectively states:

The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.

And also paragraph (F) of that same article states:

The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount.

We conclude that the interests and the rights of the child in all cases, including the cases with conflicts between the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, have priority.
Considering the above issues, we return to article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The key point in this article is that, the convention used the term "prevent" for defending the rights of the child in this subject. Prevent means, preventative protection. Preventative protection is on the opposite side of therapeutic protection. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an example of therapeutic protection which states:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.

The interests of the child have priorities in all cases, then isn't giving a child to a mother or a father that are active in the sex industry, against the preventative protection which is included in article 34 of this convention?!
In other hand, plurality of intercourse infects many active individuals in the sex industry, with the HIV virus. The important point in this disease is long incubation period. It may take between 2 and 3 weeks to years while test show nothing of infection in infected body meanwhile HIV-positive person is infectious during this period of time.
Which one has priority in the contrast between the freedom of sex industry and the risk of infection with HIV for children by the infected mothers?!