Why child abuse images are immoral - and how they are defined (and how non-pedophiles manufacture them too - without sexualized intent)

 Child abuse images, when defined by law, are still very vague in Western countries, and the judge and jury here in Unites States can make a decision with much discretion. However, I am a Christian, of the children's rights conservative sort. 

The secular law focuses on poses that are intended to promote the minor child sexually. The biblical understanding of child abuse images involves any depiction taken without a child's informed consent, assuming all depictions taken by an adult that are sexually deviant and promoting in nature, or else sexualize or objectify the child for sexual purposes, are child abuse images.

The Greek root word translated πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to the entitled attitude of "I am the parent/adult, and I decide my child's visibility on the Internet, and the child is my property so that there is nothing wrong with that". It is wanting to "share" or "promote" a child, to the point of seeing them as property

Simply sneaking a shot from a camera, and posting it on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media website, and mocking or attacking your child in some way as "ungrateful" and "hateful" is, in fact, online exploitation of children.

Many times, the exploitation is deliberate, yet has no connection to a pedophile. These are called "child shaming videos" and they are the number one unlawful image we deal with at my level of children's rights administration, and they are completely legal, at least de facto because the police are on the side of parents. Shantytown. Island tradition. Corrupt police. That's how the anti-spanking countries in Europe see us. The parents don't even have to bribe the cops - they just invoke the "reasonable force" defense. Most judges side with the parents, which sets a precedent that abusing a child on live camera is legal as long as it doesn't leave any physical injuries, with mental injuries being very hard to prove in court, needing a psychologist to assess and make the report here in Pennsylvania...God's Law is much more stern on abusers than the law of men.

I avoid using images that are taken without the child's informed consent, including even "look pretty" images if I think they are over the top, such as all fours from aside with a swimsuit on. I memorize and go by the Dost test, and take it further to exclude any image taken without her consent, and am sure not to give any such image any fanfare or clicks.

Let the depraved sexual deviants who defend child pornography and child abuse images BURN! FORNICATION IS SIN! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!