Posted on 08/09/2002 8:59:43 AM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Ten Americans and six foreigners were charged Friday with taking sexually explicit photographs of their own children or children in their care and sending them over the Internet to an international child pornography ring, the U.S. Customs Service said.
Forty-five children, including 37 in the United States, were victims and have been removed from the care of those indicted, Customs officials said. Most of them are in the custody of another parent or relative.
The defendants include nine people from seven states who were indicted in Fresno, Calif., along with six residents of Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The indictment alleges that members of the ring, referring to themselves as ``the club,'' traded messages across the Internet requesting photographs of specific sexual poses. One man asked for an audiotape so he could hear a child crying while being spanked, the indictment said, and another posed naked with an underage girl.
The Customs Service coordinated the U.S. investigation that began last November with a request for help from the Danish National Police, who were acting on a tip about an international child pornography ring. ``I congratulate the investigators whose ingenuity and perseverance brought these people to justice,'' Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner said in a statement.
The Americans charged include: Lloyd Alan Emmerson of Fresno County, Calif.; Paul Whitmore and Brooke Rowland, San Diego County, Calif.; Tracy Reynolds, Texas; Leslie Peter Bowcut, Idaho; Michael David Harland, Florida; Harry Eldon Tschernetzki, Washington state; John Zill, South Carolina; Craig Davidson, Kansas. The identity of the tenth American was not immediately available.
The foreigners were identified as Eggert Jensen and Bente Jensen of Denmark; Jean-Michael Frances Cattin, Marcel Egli and Peter Althaus of Switzerland; and Dirk-Jan Prins of the Netherlands.
On the Net: Customs Service: http://www.customs.ustreas.gov
AP-ES-08-09-02 1114EDT
Eighty percent of the children were molested by one of their own parents, they said.
Most of the children are now in the custody of another parent or relative, or foster care.
``I've rarely seen crimes as despicable and repugnant,'' Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner said.
I've already discussed the relationship between belief in God and being able to say "because it's wrong."
Cases like this, however, are political. As we've seen, the existence and effectiveness of laws against pedophilia (or whatever) hinge on beliefs.
To maintain laws against pedophilia requires us to ensure not only that the preponderance of people believe as we do, but also that they have some firm foundation to stand on when challenged by the psychologists, etc.
My contention is that the only firm foundation is a belief in God -- hence the call for Evangelism.
?????
Functioning normally? or legally and morally properly?
A fine but important distincion, but I don't want to sidetrack the main subject.
Well, if libertarians ever gain control of government, child-pornography will become commonplace and fully accepted.
I have no problem with children as young as 16 getting married, as long as it is mandatory that the parent give permission for the union. My reasons are that, for the most part, parents show more maturity and wisdom than children, there are exceptions to the general rule of emotional maturity, and if a person is mature enough to have an intimate relationship, they are mature enough to commit to a lasting intimate union.
Then lay 'em on us. Show me how you can prove that sex with a child is wrong, according to the "law of nature". There are 10 year olds in college. Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that they lack the ability to sexually consent. They can understand quantum physics but they don't have the ability to consent?
It is not lack of interest it is fear of interest.
I grew up religious, but not pathologically so.
I also grew up with the conviction that anything can be discussed without using bludgeons to suppress the discussion itself
Unfortunately that happens instantly on some threads. Say the wrong thing and you are instantly accused of promoting pedophilia, or jamming bibles down people's throats.
I avoid those threads; and I suspect most other rational peole do too.
Lack of participation is no mystery.
This thread has continued in a surprisingly civil fashion much longer than the average.
You missed my point.
If they are legal terms they are subject to the whims of society and politics.
If it they are moral terms then there might just be a universal and eternal truth supporting them.
I believe that they are moral terms (as distinct from religious terms).
Unfortunately - fearing conversations like this just allows the "cancer" to spread in my opinion.
If anyone's interested in being bumped on these threads I'd be happy to ping you. I have been researching the topic ever since the whole APA issue some time back.
If they are legal terms they are subject to the whims of society and politics.
If it they are moral terms then there might just be a universal and eternal truth supporting them.
I believe that they are moral terms (as distinct from religious terms).
Actually - I did get your point and gave you my definition in light of the two alternatives. Although, I really think we're splitting hairs. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are moral terms. The issue comes down to "so what?" Why are they moral? Who makes them moral? I agree with the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" terms but one cannot escape the question of an absolute reference point when it come to morality. If it's a moral term then who is your moral absolute?
And if they are moral terms then the word "might" can have no play in this matter because it becomes an issue of "must." Otherwise we're just splitting hairs and we're back in the lap of moral relativism. For my interpretation of moral absolutes surely outranks your moral absolute - right? My point? (I always feel the need to clarify - my apologies) God is either in it or not - without him it's all relative and child porn/sex is perfectly fine given whatever context is the flavor of the day.
LOL
Fortunately, proving "their competence" is every bit as slippery and a conundrum as "informed consent".
Cute frapster.
When I was a kid I used to expend loads of energy avoiding the unpleasant parts such as thinking; or reasoning; or proceding from one logical point to the next.
Slow down.
If you think the only way moral truths are found is via a burning bush or hallucinogenic mushrooms you are wasting my time and yours.
You really believe that Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Ortega y Vega, Thoreau all wasted their time taking way too long to get to a point you have miraculously inferred instantly?
You personify the very reason someone a short while back was bemoaning the shortness of these threads.
Congratulations.
Since I don't believe that "rational" and "relativistic" are synonyous it appears that we don't even have a common language with which to continue this discussion.
Sorry.
Rights are defined by God, wrongs are defined both by God and the natural law He instituted and upon which inalienable rights are founded. Natural law can afflict "the disobedient" with severe penalties for it's breach. For instance, observe the consequences of failing to recognize gravity (a natural law of physics) or the inevitabilities associated with one's failure to behave honestly ( natural laws of morality) or AIDS (failure to recognize the natural law that "part A" fits into "Part B," and not into "Part C"
I'm going to accuse you of dodging the point in this case. The issue is not consent, but the propriety of certain sexual relationships.
"Informed Consent" is simply a measure of whether the person can understand the consequences of his or her acceptance -- of sexual relations, or whatever.
From the standpoint of making laws, the idea of informed consent is notoriously difficult to define -- which is why we tend to define fixed ages for reaching various levels of legal status.
The moral implications of informed consent are that I am doing nothing wrong so long as my partner -- be she 8 or 80 -- understands what she's getting herself into. Immorality occurs only when I file to obtain informed consent prior to initiating the relationship.
Taken by itself, then, the idea of informed consent says that sex with 8-year-olds is not necessarily wrong. Yet most people cannot escape the conclusion that a sexual relationship with an 8- or 10-year old girl is monstrous even if she's capable of informed consent. There's something intrinsically wrong with it.
There are clearly moral imperatives at work here beyond "informed consent;" unfortunately, when one tries to exclude them from the debate, one loses the real moral debate.
Please show me where I have articulated any "laws of nature"?
To me they are just as useless as the "laws of god" when attempting to exercise your faculties as a reasoning human being.
Putting words in other peoples' mouths is a bad strategy; it betrays a tendency to control and insert dogma as proof when examining the role of dogma itself in a discussion.
You are frapster are pursuing the same strategy and it is doomed to fail:
That the appeal to religious zealotry is the only certain way to arrive at these truths.
Simply another way to say "because it is"...
A non-answer.
And another way to say "I give up".
Let's cut to the chase here.
Let's suppose I bring forth an 8-year old girl who meets the standard of competence required to give "informed consent." (There are undoubtedly some who might qualify.)
Are you telling me that it would be OK for me to begin a sexual relationship with her?
Probably not -- in which case your reasoning would have to involve something other than informed consent.
But this simply points out the difficulty of reasoning with people like pedophiles. Any other objections you can make revolve around some version of "doing no harm." The problem is that for to each plausible objection you can make, somebody can make a plausible counter-argument. We see them being made -- it causes no physical or mental harm, enhances sexual performance, etc.
Eventually you're either going to have to accept pedophilia, or you're going to have to say "it's wrong because it's wrong."
There is way too much in your reply to address at one time.
Perhaps I can begin to respond by articulating that I reject the notion that a belief in God is the only way to assure myself that certain truths are absolute.
To do so is circular reasoning, and little divorced from "because I say so". This leads directly to the morass of "is there a God?"
We must avoid that, or (once again) bring the discussion to a screeching halt.
Because I believe that there can be, and are, totally moral people who are agnostics.
How can they justify their existence? How can they become the allies of a "god-thumping" absolutist?
Moral truths have been discussed long before Christianity or any other monotheism, for that matter.
Are you implying that their thinking is a total waste of time?
Their reasoning as human beings is useless because they did not share your belief in the trinity or the redemption or original sin?
Bottom line: if you must resort to the bible as the sole crutch and underpinning of your argument, you have already lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.