That human being isn't identifiable without any external input, you admit as much yourself. That input isn't any more or less available with any other type of porn.
Except it
is, because the child is right there on the screen, inside its mother.
So again, if the child is behind a wall of flesh, or a wall of concrete 50,000 miles away, or is born ten years after the scene is filmed you still have the potential for someone being taunted with the material who had no say in it's production.
Except the child behind a wall 50,000 miles away or born ten years later isn't right there on the screen, inside its mother, effectively in the scene. It's not just the taunting, it's how that child will feel when they grow up, if they find out. I'd throw up if I knew people were fapping to my mother belly swollen with me, and I'm a big fan of porn and pretty open-minded with lots of niches. Imagine if bump grows up to be someone vehemently against porn, ethically speaking? Finding out their mum did porn would be bad enough, but to find out they were a part of it, as a bump, would be fucking horrific.
They're not involved with the actual act.
You can argue they're not involved in the act due to the biological mechanics, but they are visible in the scene inside mum's belly, which I think is wrong. I'd feel the same if it was a baby in a cot. You're involving another life in a pornographic scene before they have chance to agree to it. They're biologically detached from the act, but they're present in the scene. Which I think is wrong.
You wouldn't argue that a man having sex with his pregnant wife is committing incest, would you?
I didn't say anything about incest, just that "bump" being involved in a porno is wrong. I think there'd be fucking uproar if two pornstars were shagging with a newborn baby in a cot present, even if there was zero chance of the baby remembering as an adult, and slim likelihood of them finding out it was them. Baby still inside mummy - that's fine, is it? If we could ask the nearly-born "do you want to be in mummy's porno" and they could comprehend what we were asking, what do you think they would say? I've got a pretty good idea.
(in an unidentifiable and indirect way)
This is doing my nut now. How is the bump unidentifiable? The second that child comes into the world, people
all over the world are going to know that they were inside mummy during that scene, and one day there's a good chance they'll find out.
One kid in their school knows who their mother is, does a quick Google, and within a day the whole school knows. And they know. Mummy got fucked on camera for men to whack off over while
they were inside. I'm not entirely sure how it can be classified as "indirect" either, just because they're not actually the person being fucked. They're inside the person being fucked. That's pretty direct.
What consenting adults do to make money and for other adults masturbatory pleasure is up to them, but involving an unborn child in it....
nah. That's wrong. I guess I can't truly say "not for me" because like I said, the sight of a naked pregnant woman in full bloom performing sex acts
did arouse me, but my moral compass pointed at "WRONG" so I turned it off. Not just "icky" but wrong. All the other examples you gave of "some people think icky" - S&M, interracial, midgets, anal - take place between consenting adults. Bump can't consent to being involved, so I don't think they should be.
Agree to disagree.