MD Anderson Cancer Center pediatric oncologist charged in child p*rnography case

I'm sure the guys taking the pictures of the kids are just letting them go on their merry way with a lollipop after they take a couple snapshots.

 

It blows my mind that this is even up for debate.

 

He's a dead man, I agree...but your son and daughter would be much more harmed if they were sexually abused compared to if some guy took a picture of them nude.

 

A multi-post debate on the relative evilness of child pornographers vs. child molesters? Gotta love the internet.

 

Do you really think that's all that's happening?

 

You waiting for more evidence before being disgusted by this . . . . amirite?



---
In all seriousness - This guy deserves what he gets. A sick individual.

Rocket River

 

If the pics are hospital taken shots of kids for medical purposes...the kids are safe. It's the sick b*stard that is fapping to the kids that the issue.

 

I agree with rezdawg but I have a hard time typing anything that might sound like I'm defending this oncologist.

 

Has it been reported that's all this was? The affidavit reads that the pictures were sexual in nature.

EDIT: The guy admitted downloading and viewing child p*rnography from the internet. These weren't innocent pictures.

 

Im talking about this doctor in particular....watching videos and seeing pics of kids naked. As far as I know, he has not sexually abused anyone, based on the evidence released. Sure, someone out there has taken advantage of those situations, and this doctor is adding fuel to the fire by being interested in this crap...but again, the court will agree with me...and watching is different than doing.

 

I think that's where the confusion is with what Im stating...it sounds like I dont think he should be severely punished.

He's a sick ****...but I dont think he deserves death. He just needs to get major treatment and be locked away for some time...and never be allowed around children.

 

Well good for you and court for thinking this is less worse. Maybe if they treated them the same, the viewings would decrease and more kids would avoid having their lives ruined as well.

 

Do you think before the internet and p*rn videos...that sexual abuse of kids didnt exist?

The same people that would do it on camera or off camera are going to do it regardless.

A normal human being without the child molestation gene in their DNA wont think, "You know what, I can make $500 bucks by molesting a kid to put it up on the internet, sweet!".

Those same people who molest kids and record it are the same ones that would do it with or without views, because they have ****ed up minds to begin with.

 

Rez, do you know that most of these child p*rn videos now are made overseas?

It's made by human traffickers using the Internet to sell their product. The Internet has made it easier to distribute this garbage. The ones who demand the product only continue to contribute to child sex trafficking.

 

And I'd argue the same people who would happily watch recordings of kids being molested would do it if they didn't have these people doing it for them. They all need to be treated with the same level of harshness.

 

I'm not very well versed regarding the child p*rn industry. Did this doctor have memberships to these sites or did he pay for it? If he did, then he can possibly be seen as an accessory to the crime. In other words, he helps, but his participation is not on par with those putting these videos out. Therefore, he should still be punished, but the guys profiting off children getting raped should be killed.

 

That's a big stretch though and a big leap in assumption. If I watched dentist/patient pornogrpahy...that doesn't mean that I would participate in attempting that if I wasn't able to access it on the internet. Doing something in person is much different than sitting in your room behind a computer.

 

It's no more a stretch than saying this would be happening on the same scale if there was no internet.

 

Ok, so what's the solution here? Does this doctor deserve the death penalty?

 

To try to wade through the moral quagmire. Consider what is worse. Someone who does meth or the person who makes the meth. I think most would argue that someone making meth is worse. That doesn't excuse the meth user since without using their obviously wouldn't be an incentive to make it in the first place. The other problem with someone who is addicted to meth they are likely going to do a lot of bad things to make sure they can continue to get meth.

In a case even if the doctor isn't making child p*rn or molesting children that he has an appetite for it might lead him to do other things to make sure he can get his fix. That he has a job that gives gives him access to children and makes him an authority figure around children makes him particularly dangerous. So while just as a consumer he might not in the legal or absolute sense be as evil as the producer he potentially represents a threat to the safety of other children given both his sexual predilections and his job.