[Antoninus]

Involving "Kiddie-porn" in this argument has long been a conveniant straw-man used by so-called conservatives like yourself (and Falwell/Robertson/FCC) to prop up an argument that you know is destructive to personal liberties in America.

It's not a straw man. It's simply a point that's devastating to your argument--so of course, it's convenient for you to create an artificial separation at the arbitrary age of 18.

The coercive aspect is only involved in the making of child porn. There is no coercive aspect involved in owning or viewing it. I, personally, am in favor of keeping it illegal to own or view. How about you? If so, you are limiting the freedom of many brave patriots to own and view child pornography. Does that make you the moral equivalent of the Taliban?

[Durus]

Claiming that a point is devastating to my argument and having it actually be devastating are two very different things.

Again you say that it's an artificial separation when in fact it is a very real separation. Consent vs. non-consent.
Then you go on to argue the straw man...then you switch gears and ask why it's illegal to own or view it. By purchasing or obtaining this illegal material then you are in fact an accessory to the crime. It's the same reason why receiving stolen goods is illegal or driving a getaway car from a bank robbery. I don't advocate overturning these law as they protect the rights of the people.