> A demand for such pictures would mean a demand for child abuse.
That is actually a pretty radical claim, for which I don't know that any evidence exists.
Whatever the facts are, arguing this point is a lot like the Catholic church arguing against condoms because they promote gay and immoral sex acts. There's no evidence either way, and a scientific mind would assume the null hypothesis. Furthermore I would hope we can strive to have the standards for lawmaking be held to science.
> On one hand, we have real children being abused in real life.
What we have is a law that says that children are being abused, by decree. If you heve sex with someone who's 18 minus a day, abuse has taken place and you are a rapist. Tomorrow, though, it's love.
Child sexual abuse definitely exists, as does adult sexual abuse, but you can't use age of consent, which is a mostly arbitrary legal matter (that historically nobody agrees on), to bolster a moral argument.
That is actually a pretty radical claim, for which I don't know that any evidence exists.
Whatever the facts are, arguing this point is a lot like the Catholic church arguing against condoms because they promote gay and immoral sex acts. There's no evidence either way, and a scientific mind would assume the null hypothesis. Furthermore I would hope we can strive to have the standards for lawmaking be held to science.
> On one hand, we have real children being abused in real life.
What we have is a law that says that children are being abused, by decree. If you heve sex with someone who's 18 minus a day, abuse has taken place and you are a rapist. Tomorrow, though, it's love.
Child sexual abuse definitely exists, as does adult sexual abuse, but you can't use age of consent, which is a mostly arbitrary legal matter (that historically nobody agrees on), to bolster a moral argument.