> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial? I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugna

> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial? I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant? Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto? And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)? In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?