[garbanzo]

Well the law doesn't recognize those choices (nor should it) - I'm only discussing whether or not harm occurs in absolutely every case. I'll repeat again that the probability of harm is so great that the society is oblieged to act to prevent it.

The philosophical issue raised is what can be called the democratization of virtue and vice - i.e. if something is [good,bad,neutral] for someone, somewhere, at some point in time, then it's [good,bad,neutral] for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Consequently, no one can even discuss obvious facts (like that not everyone who smokes dies from cancer or heart disease) without being accused of encouraging people to smoke.

The danger with the all or nothing approach is that one only has to find a few counterexamples to invalidate a perfectly useful moral premise.

[JoeSixPack1]

Understood. My short rant was only in reference to the relative differences between adults and minors being able to make personal choices. Minors are a protected sector of humanity. Pediphilia by its nature shatters that protection.

[jaq]

The danger with the all or nothing approach is that one only has to find a few counterexamples to invalidate a perfectly useful moral premise.
The all-or-nothing approach IS the premise for law.