Pedophilia is not being normalized, but it would be good if it were, at least insofar as pedophilia merely denotes sexual attraction that one can't control.
Subsidized voluntary euthanasia for pedophiles would be an improvement upon the status quo for all interested parties. Just have an open, government subsidized offer where a person struggling with pedophilic attraction can go to a publically owned clinic and, upon convincing a medical professional that they they're a pedophile, donating their remains to science/medicine, confessing any outstanding pedophilic crimes, and they are doing this voluntarily, they could be euthanized humanely and a significant sum of money (Maybe $50k?) would be distributed as the person wanted. Then their name and list of such named victims as consent are run in the local paper of note and a website, similar to notices of foreclosure and probate announcements.
The pedophile alleviates their suffering and protects the public from the risk that they fall off the wagon, while reducing stigma through the nobility of their sacrifice. The public's risk of child molestation decreases by a non-zero amount, and the supply of donor organs goes up. Such victims as the euthanized person made suffer get closure and and admission of guilt. The state saves a lot of money on the risk of imprisonment and the cost of end of life care. Ardent pedo haters get to see death imposed for pedophilia, at a much lower cost than state sanctioned execution. Optimistically, the supply of confirmed pedophile brains to scientific research could help psychologists gain some insight into the causes of this mental disorder and maybe work toward a cure.
The pyschological examination and stigma that come with an announcement should suffice to keep anyone from doing it for the money, and provide at least some safeguard against coercion. If you like the destigmatization of attraction to minors, decreasing stigmatization of minor attraction, and protecting children from sexual abuse, this achieves all three with little downside. It's certainly better than the status quo, and I closer to being within the overton window than anything pedophile apologists have put forward.
I generally agree with this, but this part seems to demand further explanation:
> Note, obviously we should not destigmatize sex with children—that should be classified as child rape and should be a significant offense.
"Rape" is usually defined as non-consensual sex; "consent" is usually defined as being willing to do something without coercion & communicating that willingness, often with a stipulation that you fully understand what the thing is. It seems likely that most sex with children is rape by this definition (assuming by "children" you mean prepubescent children), which fact by itself justifies continued stigmatization of sex with children, but it is, in theory, possible for a child to consent to sex, i.e. to understand what sex is, be willing to participate in it, & communicate that willingness to their potential partner; moreover, given that there have been societies in which sex with children was normalized & considered good in some contexts (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people ), this has probably actually occurred more than a few times. Thus your statement that sex with a child is always rape seems, given the usual definition of those words, like an unjustified & almost-certainly-false overgeneralization. (One argument made for this is that consent to sex doesn't count unless the person is above a certain age, but this appears to be an attempt to gerrymander the category of consent in order to assume the desired conclusion.)
Subsidized voluntary euthanasia for pedophiles would be an improvement upon the status quo for all interested parties. Just have an open, government subsidized offer where a person struggling with pedophilic attraction can go to a publically owned clinic and, upon convincing a medical professional that they they're a pedophile, donating their remains to science/medicine, confessing any outstanding pedophilic crimes, and they are doing this voluntarily, they could be euthanized humanely and a significant sum of money (Maybe $50k?) would be distributed as the person wanted. Then their name and list of such named victims as consent are run in the local paper of note and a website, similar to notices of foreclosure and probate announcements.
The pedophile alleviates their suffering and protects the public from the risk that they fall off the wagon, while reducing stigma through the nobility of their sacrifice. The public's risk of child molestation decreases by a non-zero amount, and the supply of donor organs goes up. Such victims as the euthanized person made suffer get closure and and admission of guilt. The state saves a lot of money on the risk of imprisonment and the cost of end of life care. Ardent pedo haters get to see death imposed for pedophilia, at a much lower cost than state sanctioned execution. Optimistically, the supply of confirmed pedophile brains to scientific research could help psychologists gain some insight into the causes of this mental disorder and maybe work toward a cure.
The pyschological examination and stigma that come with an announcement should suffice to keep anyone from doing it for the money, and provide at least some safeguard against coercion. If you like the destigmatization of attraction to minors, decreasing stigmatization of minor attraction, and protecting children from sexual abuse, this achieves all three with little downside. It's certainly better than the status quo, and I closer to being within the overton window than anything pedophile apologists have put forward.
I generally agree with this, but this part seems to demand further explanation:
> Note, obviously we should not destigmatize sex with children—that should be classified as child rape and should be a significant offense.
"Rape" is usually defined as non-consensual sex; "consent" is usually defined as being willing to do something without coercion & communicating that willingness, often with a stipulation that you fully understand what the thing is. It seems likely that most sex with children is rape by this definition (assuming by "children" you mean prepubescent children), which fact by itself justifies continued stigmatization of sex with children, but it is, in theory, possible for a child to consent to sex, i.e. to understand what sex is, be willing to participate in it, & communicate that willingness to their potential partner; moreover, given that there have been societies in which sex with children was normalized & considered good in some contexts (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people ), this has probably actually occurred more than a few times. Thus your statement that sex with a child is always rape seems, given the usual definition of those words, like an unjustified & almost-certainly-false overgeneralization. (One argument made for this is that consent to sex doesn't count unless the person is above a certain age, but this appears to be an attempt to gerrymander the category of consent in order to assume the desired conclusion.)