>From what I gather, most child pornography isn't Uncle Bill raping his niece, but rather "child modelling" photographs from where/when it is/was perfectly legal. The children and their parents consented.
That's not what I heard. Do you really think that in this day and age, when even cell phones have 5MP cameras, people who are aroused by children would be content with ancient grainy and often relatively blurry photos?
Also, children cannot consent to this sort of thing. This is not a legal fiction. I'm all in favour of lowering the age of consent in some places, but the boundary line still has to be drawn somewhere after the onset of puberty.
>This is what happens when somebody starts believing that, against evidence, evolution is possible and that there is no God, your morals twist.
You are a moron. Where's your evidence for the existence of God? Where's the evidence against the possibility, nay the fact, of evolution? Morality has nothing to do with believing in a big beard in the sky.