It's affected her life, and that's affected my life. So you could say that my life has been harmed by pornography. Or not.
It's not my concern. You could say it harmed you (whatever I think is irrelevant). If you think you've been harmed by another that person's act of viewing pornography take the person to court and do your best to prove before an impartial jury that you've been harmed.
That said, this forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.
That is my position. No one has a "right" to do evil things. So no one has a "right" to access pornography.
Should pornography be outlawed then? That question is a matter for prudential decision-making. Simply considered as a practical matter, it is impossible to criminalize all vice. What criteria then should be used to determine whether a vice should be criminalized?
It's my understanding that Aquinas' main principle for determining whether or not a particular vice should be criminalized (and for determining the penalty) is whether or not the penalty will generate more vice than the vice being suppressed. That certainly seems like a reasonable basis for formulating laws regarding vice.
How would this apply to pornography? Certainly there is nothing intrinsically immoral about criminalizing pornography. Someone posted a thread discussing taxing pornography heavily which seemed like a good idea to me. All advertising for pornography should also be outlawed. Those seem like good first steps to me.
the place has become statists central...they use the term liberty and those who believe in it as perjoratives.