The same could be said about loli/shota. Once again, I`m gonna use Canada as an example.
The following quote (which is from R v Sharpe) is taken from: Child pornography laws in Canada - Wikipedia
Interpreting “person” in accordance with Parliament’s purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that ‘person’ in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that “person” in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
Translation: Just as depictions of actual minors is illegal, loli/shota is “gross” and should be criminalized because it involves characters that look like children. If it looks like a child, then it represents a child, which means that it could be harmful to children.
Btw, here’s a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG) (2004) (the original text can be found here and here):
Section 43 does not discriminate contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalization that s. 43 avoids, the presence of other governmental initiatives to reduce the use of corporal punishment, and the fact that abusive and harmful conduct is still prohibited by the criminal law, would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended in the manner contemplated by s. 15(1). While children need a safe environment, they also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. Section 43 is Parliament’s attempt to accommodate both of these needs. It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. Without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.
Translation: If we ban corporal punishment (including spanking) of children, it could ruin lives and break apart families. As long as it’s not harmful, corporal punishment is fine. It’s definitely not child abuse in the slightest. NO, WE AREN’T HYPOCRITES, WE KNOW WHAT’S RIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
It’s unfortunate that society has let this form of child abuse perpetuate. However, like I already said, things are changing, albeit slowly.
Edit: I forgot to add this, but I remember seeing a YouTube comment in which the person compared hitting or spanking a child to hitting a computer (although I don’t remember what it specifically said).
It went along the lines of: “When a computer doesn’t work properly, you don’t fix it by hitting it. Instead, what you get is a broken computer. Same thing with kids.”