Not only is pornography conceptually struggling for public acceptance a lot more than the media portrays, but in fact it has become less accepted over the last couple years.

2018:

43% say OK
55% say not OK

2019:

37% say OK
61% say not OK

2020:

36% say OK
61% say not OK

This appears to be a reversal of the previous upward trend in public support...which seems to suggest that the theory industry advocates have often advanced that people's lack of support for their business is owned to ignorance is bullshit. There have never been more Americans consuming pornography and Americans have never been less religious, and yet public support for porn appears to be waning.

As you might be able to tell by my tone, I'm among the industry's principled detractors, and my motives are not religious. (I'm an atheist.) I don't hold a lower view of people who consume pornography. It's made to be biologically addictive (at least for men anyway). I do have a low opinion of pornographers though.

The problems I have with the industry are numerous, ranging from the ready availability of content produced without the consent of the female participants (i.e. "revenge" porn photographs and videos, upskirting photographs and videos, videos of actual, non-simulated rape and molestation, etc.) to the simple reality that the wanton proliferation of porn since the turn of the century in particular thanks to the internet has made people's sex lives worse than they were before overall. Some of the more muted ways in which people's sex lives have worsened include the increasing commonality of erectile dysfunction among men (i.e. inability to achieve erection during actual sex) and the fact that only a minority of women today report "always or nearly always" achieving orgasm during sex today, down from 56% in 1999. Some of the less subtle consequences have included a dramatic uptick in strangulation of women during "consensual" sex, which has, in many cases, been wielded as a legal cover for cold-blooded murder. Today's young women often show signs of trauma from theoretically consensual sex because of how violent and abusive the standard practice has become. Is it really any wonder why younger people, and younger women especially, today are delaying sex and child-bearing longer and having sex less often than their predecessors at the same age despite all of this glorious sexual liberation they've supposedly been handed by the internet?

More:

"A 2019 study published in Archives of Sexual Behavior also confirms links between porn consumption and “adolescent dating violence and sexual aggression,” showing that violent pornography exposure was associated with all types of teen dating violence. In fact, the study reports that “adolescents who intentionally viewed violent pornography were almost six times more likely to report sexually aggressive behavior than those who had not.”

...

Today, a majority of scenes in mainstream porn contain both physical and verbal abuse targeted against the female performers. Psychologist Ana Bridges and her team at the University of Arkansas also found that 90 percent of scenes contained at least one aggressive act (if both physical and verbal aggression were combined). And that’s just the regular stuff. There is even harder material available (the so-called “dark web” material, which is illegal) for those who can afford it — snuff movies where the violence can reach a point of no return for the female victim, including death."

Not trying to say you have to agree with me, just pointing out that there are, in fact, actual reasons why many Americans object to a culture of sexual objectification and they're not all rooted in a religious insistence upon personal modesty. Label me whatever you want.

It is immoral to call out misapprehensions? That's a weird idea.

It's fine to have your own concept of what a baby is, but when you are communicating with other humans and you want to use a definition outside the confines of standardized ones, it's entirely your burden to make that clear. At no point in your post did you even come close to hinting that was the case.

So tell me, what is the definition of baby in your head you are using so I can better address you?

I know you weren't talking to me, but my feeling is that...it's a fertilized egg, I'm sorry. I mean opponents of abortion really like to dramatize rare third-trimester abortions and portray them as the rule, but in reality more than 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester at points when the "unborn baby" looks nothing like a baby, has no consciousness at all, cannot exist outside of the woman's body, and cannot even necessarily feel any pain. I frequently see people online compare that to the Holocaust, which is just...ridiculous, in my view. Most Jewish people seem to think it's ridiculous too, considering that 83% of them poll as pro-choice.

I mean you're free to hold whatever view you want to of it, and I'm sure it's easy for you to preach about this as someone who is biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, but I would just point out that women have abortions for real reasons, like not being able to afford another child. Maybe your partner, on whom you were financially dependent, broke up with you between your impregnation and the current point in time, for example. This stuff happens. If not by at least weighing the option of terminating such a pregnancy, then how do you 'take responsibility for your actions' at that point? Maybe if you tried to put yourself in the place of an abandoned women who can't afford the rent let alone more children or say a 13-year-old who made a mistake or a rape survivor for example, maybe you'd begin to at least understand why abortions happen.

Sex between teenagers: 38%

What? They mean between and not with teenagers when you are like 50, right? I understand that it's not the best idea to get pregnant as teenager nowadays but having sex as teenager? Damn...I would say that's one of the most normal things on this planet

Uh, some things really stick out to me here:

Drinking alcohol: 86%

I'm not sure how 14 % can consider drinking alcohol to not be morally acceptable. I mean, you don't have to drink too much when drinking...

Sex between teenagers: 38%

How is the number for this so low? Have people never been young?

Cloning animals: 34%

Not sure what the problem is here.

Cloning humans: 12%

Or here, for that matter. It's all genetic, so who cares?

Anyway, for all I care, in a lot of situations, I'd say most of the listed things are morally acceptable. There are situations where some things are either a bad idea or morally unacceptable, but in general, I don't have any problems with most of the listed things. That said, in these days 'Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur' and 'Married men and women having an affair' are things that are harder to find justifications for.

Porn isn't immoral because people are recording sexy. I'm personally fine with amateurs recording their own sexual adventures

I also don't bother that people are being payed for using their bodies, as long it's consensual

The problem for me is the industry. It's very demanding, physically and psychologically. Actors are often depressed and need to work under medications, the salaries aren't exactly high either and raping and physical abuse is rampant

I'm glad persona channels like onlyfans are becoming a thing, it's better people have their own schedule (and being fully paid) without a studio and director clogging you with viagra so you can have sex 8 times a day

We're absolutely going to disagree about the bolded math there. Also, I was not exactly the first here to "use pity" in one sense or another vis-a-vis this issue. You're alive today because an abortion didn't happen. I was raped at a young age. We're both human. I totally get why you feel the way you do and don't know what else to tell you. To that end, I believe we've realistically reached the end of our ability to make progress in our debate on this particular issue.

Probably right, but couldn't resist probing more for people's reasoning / clarifying my own views further in a few cases.

I still do not see any definition.

You continue to use the term baby yet refuse to define what you mean when you say baby which is the source of your confusion and mine. Without a definition I cannot address anything that you say referring to the term baby because I have no idea what you mean when you say that word.

So you now are agreeing that a fetus is different than a baby, although you offer no definition for either term so I have no way of knowing if this corresponds in any way to the standard concepts.

A fetus is just a meat sack, its parts do not cause me any mental strife. Same reaction to pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead. If they are sufficiently developed, they may have brain function but mere brain function does not constitute being a person which entails consciousness. Imagine never being born, it's not a terrible thing. 

People act like when you die you retain your memories and persist, but that's just naive. When you die, it'll be just like before you were born. Nothingness. Not good, not bad, just nothing. Ignorance is bliss as they say. 

That's not Polygamy, but Polyamory. Polygamy is when you have married more than one partner. Living as the sole guy with 3 women but not being married to any of them or just one of them would thus technically not be polygamy, even though it checks all the marks bar the legal definition one.