The thing is that her point might be that abstinence-only education leaves kids open to not being prepared if they get into these situations that young, but I think it's hideous to consider child pornography to be better than anything, let alone that. It's not just that children are sex objects, but the kids are too young to understand the implications of what they are getting into, for one thing, and not even a parent should be allowed to speak for a child in that regard.
Further, if you're married at 13 or so, at least no one is widely circulating your nekkid pictures in rather intimate poses publicly for money. Not to mention that kids are very suseptible to predatory handling. The adult porn industry itself is a dangerous place for adults, let alone a child in the kiddie porn industry.
More than ever, I think people these days need to be adults before they are having sex, and I don't mean just happening to be 18 yrs old either, although legally there's no way to stop that. Unfortunately, sexual liberation has liberated more than just more healthy attitudes about sex, there's a whole range of problems that come with it. While only teaching abstinence is wishful thinking for controlling this issue, given raging teen hormones, if at all possible it should still be a central facet of sex ed.
I really think that people like this think they can get rid of dangerous behaviors like child porn by simply redefining the terms so that they are no longer considered dangerous. Similarly, the teen sex problem should be resolved by simply not considering it a problem anymore. Voila! No more problems. Wasn't that easy?
Getting teenage children to not have sex is a problem of upbringing, education, and parental supervision, but it is a problem that needs solving, not just giving in and assuming it's going to happen anyway.