so, you propose making an as-yet-to-be-determined- library of child pornography, made through the use of children for illegal sexual acts, legal to own and distribute? That's not even logical, and all someone will have to do is argue that the same acts are shown, therefore if A is okay, then how can B (which is the same thing,. save for the 'actress') be illegal? The end result is the legalization of all child pornography, while the acts that need be performed to create it are illegal. It seems to me that you want your library of kiddy pron to be legal (the logical implication and most likely result of your proposition), but cannot argue directly for it.