> I still don't see why that should be illegal. Chances are if someone wants to make child pornography, they will anyways. Plus I can't see anyone having to pay for porn anymore anyways, what with the internet and all. 99.9% of websites are porn, and the rest are made by stalkers. And then on to the other part of the post, why is it wrong to create a market in which regular pornography is profitable?

I don't think that you would agree with my reasons for thinking that regular pornography is immoral.
As to the argument that it should not be illegal to look at child pornography because:
a. No one really has to pay for it now anyway and
b. People who want to make child pornography will do so, profit or no.

I see your point that those who want to make child pornography will probably do so in any case. But if we agree that:
a. Child pornography is grossly immoral
and
b. Gross immorality should be illegal
then you must see that anyone who looks at child pornography is doing what is illegal. Think about what it is, exactly, that is wrong about child pornography. There is the issue of non-consent, that is, that even children who might consent should probably not be permitted to do so because of lack of experience. But that is only one problem with child pornography. The other problem (one of the other problems) is that the pornography involves children at all. Unfortunately, like all morality, eventually you reach a point where reasoning will not take you further. If you ask "Why are sexual acts involving children wrong" then I have no reasons to give you. The other things wrong with child pornography are wrong with pornography in general, and relatively unimportant to this discussion.

So, if we agree, and I hope we do, that child pornography is grossly immoral, and should not be made, then why should people be able to look at it? Even if we stay just in the realm of mere practicality, things that are desired by people will be produced by people, money or no. And if it were the case that no one was interested in looking at child pornography, of course none would be made. If we agree that child pornography should not be made, then the best way, legally, to prevent its production is to punish those who produce it, and those for whom it is produced.

You may not agree with my second premise, that anything that is grossly immoral should be made illegal; but we can agree on my other points, so long as we are agreed on the need for the prevention of child pornography.

We are having discussions about this kind of thing in the courts in Canada right now, especially regarding the aforementioned "artistic" clause that has been used by certain men to claim a right to view pictures that are, to most people, obviously pornographic and involving children. But a better example is marjiuana legalization. Whether or not smoking or producing marjiuana is illegal is irrelevant here. The bare fact is, that if it is legalized, it will save policing money, gain revenues for government through taxes, and good things like that. But I would consider someone terribly deluded if they thought that legalizing the drug would lessen its use or abuse. Making the drug legal would make it more commonly used and more abused than the terrible levels it is abused at now. The same principle, I am afraid, applies to child pornography.

Frum

"99.9% of websites are porn, and the rest are made by stalkers."
I think that makes Sam a stalker. I would very dearly prefer that.