Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?
I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant?
Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto?
And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)?
In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?
The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?
Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?
I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no?
Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they?
How about just "no"?
I could be mistaken but I’m pretty sure this Is currently perfectly legal in the United States.
I'm saying this sounds like folly.
Umm... yes?
Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.
Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More?
A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.