Court OKs child porn prosecution of minors distributing pictures of themselves

You're misusing the word crime here, despite me being very explicit about what I'm talking about.

The law does not determine crime-- morality determines that the law is criminal itself, as I've shown.

First, you use "murder" incorrectly. Abortion, in the US, is legal, and therefore not murder. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. That is why when someone is given the death penalty, they are said to be killed, not murdered. We say soldiers kill the enemy, not murder the enemy. By using "murder" you are adopting the conflation that anti-abortion activists have been (apparently) successful in promoting.

Second, nobody doubts that a zygote is alive. Nearly every cell in your body is alive (barring hair, nails, upper layers of skin, recently recycled cells), including sperm and eggs. When an egg and a sperm fuse, the result is also alive. The question is whether the rights of the zygote->blastula->fetus->baby trump the rights of the woman who is carrying it.

Obviously, by the time it becomes a baby, the baby's rights trump the desires of the woman carrying it, in general -- everybody agrees on that. Some people conceive (pun not intended) of the fertilized egg as being fully human, something God ordained and which is the vessel for a soul which has been waiting for that very zygote, and by aborting it, one is subverting God's will and destroying the intended future destiny of that soul.

Others don't share that belief. There is certainly no bright line dividing when that fetus is developed enough that its rights are superior to that of its mother, and deciding where to place that light should not be taken lightly and will cause discomfort. But we deal with such things all the time. It is legal to drive 45 MPH on the street near my house, but not 46. Yes it is somewhat arbitrary but not unreasonable either. That we have to make an uneasy boundary somewhere on the continuum isn't reason to declare that the speed limit should be zero, or that there should be no speed limit at all.

It should also be noted that at the time Roe v Wade was decided, Protestants and even evangelical Protestants by and large were not bothered by the decision. Catholics were, of course. It wasn't until the rise of the Moral Majority that the issue became objectionable to so many religious groups.

I absolutely agree that you have a right to control the influences in your kids' lives (to some extent, at least). But why do you need to involve the law in this way?

Say your daughter receives a lewd photo from an underage male. Now she's in possession of child porn (whether she wanted the photo or not) and could end up on a sex offender registry for life. How is that sane?

And the guy who sent her the picture is "trafficking in child pornography"? C'mon. That's ridiculous.

Many of these crimes are on the book with "strict liability"; that is, the mere fact of existence or possession triggers culpability, and intent doesn't enter into the equation.

I think the better model is in places where the age of consent is at some reasonable age below the age of majority (no, I don't have a good definition for "reasonable", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try), as it is in many places. There are no legal ramifications of sexual behavior down to that age, but parents are, as always, free to set limits and impose consequences if they aren't obeyed.