@ms_boot: Pedophiles need to be put away once and for all.

Yes indeed.

@ms_boot: No father who has an interest in child pornography should be granted rights to children.

Well, maybe. It would be a lot easier say that if we knew that who looked at pictures acted out what they saw in real life. But of course they don't. People who see war movies don't immediately go our and join the army, people who buy car racing magazines don't go our and race cars. Come to that, men who like porn don't even want their wives to act lie porn stars, in fact the idea would horrify most.

But of course you already know that. Regardless, you fall for the logic of the current moral panic and equate looking at pictures with paedophilia.

It would not be such an issue if it didn't also mean you rob children of what is almost certainly the second most important resource they have available to them after their biological mother: their biological father.

rstuart ~ Perhaps you could explain what healthy reason an adult male would have for looking at photographs of naked children and even to go to the lengths of seeking them out on the Internet and downloading them onto a computer for further examination. And to pay large sums of money to obtain such photographs of naked children.
A child will not know the possible consequences and repercussions of having a photograph taken of them naked, which can occur in later life or even immediately if school friends see them. Is that not taking advantage of their naivete' and innocence and thereby abusing them?.
Do not people who watch War movies have a pre-disposition towards violence and seeing others mutilated and horrifyingly killed?. Do not those who have an interest in car magazines and racing get an excitement, titillation, and stimulation from watching those activities?. Is not the major reason for people to go to motor racing in the hope of seeing spectacular crashes?. Some males who watch porn movies do expect their wives to act out what they have seen while others yearn for such but may not have the courage to make their wives behave in such ways. Being exposed to violence, abnormal sexual acts, and other stimulative and titillating activities has a gradual brutalising effect on people and which can and often does, lead them to act out what they have seen

Rstuart

>>> It would not be such an issue if it didn't also mean you rob children of what is almost certainly the second most important resource they have available to them after their biological mother: their biological father. <<<

You believe that biology has a greater import for a child than protecting said child from possible sexual predation of a parent who engages in viewing child porn?

Well, Antiseptic isn't alone on OLO after all, how many other OLO contributors have no issues with child porn?

How do you view adoptive parents - less able than biological parents?

Very strange, very warped.

JamesH: << One of the problems of abuse, is that what the authorities regard as abusive behaviour, may in some or alot of families be regarded as normal behaviour. >>

What a profoundly silly statement. Undoubtedly there are families where incest, child-beating, genital mutilation etc are regarded as "normal" behaviour, which is why we have laws and agencies to override them.

As for child pornography, I'm not so concerned about people acting out what they choose to view - I don't think there's much reliable evidence one way or the other. Rather, what concerns me is that consumers of child pornography and their defenders seem oblivious to the fact that the production of pornography using children constitutes abuse, in which consumers are complicit since they create the demand for the odious product.

Having said that, I think that cartoon material such as the notorious 'Simpsons' parody should not be illegal, since no child was abused in its production.

With respect to the case under discussion, the father not only sought out, downloaded and reproduced child pornography, but also was inclined to invite his daughter into his bed. For those reasons he should not have unsupervised access to his children.

Rstuart, you seem to be missing the point. You are simply taking a convenient defensive position. Let me ask you this:- how would you feel if some pervert took pictures of your daughter and posted them on the internet to be viewed by pedophiles?

Would you change your opinion then? Would your sanitised opinion of viewing child porn change or would you remain stuck in your convenient position about this?

rstuart ~ `Biological fathers' - so a 30 second act of donating sperm (ok girls I exaggerate on the time involved but I do sometimes have to protect their fragile little ego's) qualifies a male to absolute right and entitlement over a child. I have known many foster fathers, adoptive fathers, step-fathers, and even live-in lovers who gave their time and devotion to other men's children and were far better fathers than the `Biological' sperm donor.

What also seems to be overlooked is that `Biological fathers' go on to become the step-fathers and live-in lovers who abuse the children of other biological fathers and are so despised and reviled by those `biological fathers' and blamed for the child abuse. So in many instances, `Biological fathers' are blaming themselves.
Please explain!.