> Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime.
Who is the victim in this case? This is the definition of a thought/victimless crime.
> the child/children in the pictures they're viewing.
How so? They are not affected in any way.
> but unquestionably morally reprehensible
I will have to question that.
> How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'?
There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong.
> How do you protect children from paedophiles
* from child rapists
Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.
Who is the victim in this case? This is the definition of a thought/victimless crime.
> the child/children in the pictures they're viewing.
How so? They are not affected in any way.
> but unquestionably morally reprehensible
I will have to question that.
> How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'?
There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong.
> How do you protect children from paedophiles
* from child rapists
Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.