I disagree, looking at how many people will routinely express their beliefs on the subject by saying "children can't consent, therefore pedophilia is wrong".

I know that's what they say, but I think they are speaking loosely. They mean that the consent is not properly informed and a "yes" has no weight. They're not saying the child is unable to form the word "yes" or is even being asked to weigh in on the correctness of string theory in physics.

Agreed, except where you would talk about regret, I would talk about the power imbalance and the resulting ease with which children can be manipulated and coerced into doing things. I call bullshit on the notion that a child's consent is invalid because she might regret it later... a better argument in my opinion is that children are susceptable to being taken advantage of. Personal dissatisfaction or lack of understanding leading to regret? Not a good enough reason to criminalize something, IMO; high probability of exploitation? Now THERE'S a good reason.

I don't think there's a clear line between these. What does it mean to take advantage of someone? Very common among young teen girls is the emotional sense that "we will be together forever". If a man doesn't stress the temporary nature of a relationship, was he manipulating her? Or just setting her up for regret?

What's legal and what's ethical are different. The law draws crude boundaries in broad strokes, and (for instance) a blanket prohibition on adult sexual activity with minors lets the state effectively prosecute indisputable rape since consent is not a legal defense.

I've said many times that sometimes adult-child sexual activity can turn out OK if all circumstances are just right. It's the inability to determine those circumstances in advance that make it always unethical to do it. But the pedophile's loving desires are not inherently evil or harmful.

If I'm considering whether or not a particular sexual situation is unethical, then "How old is this particular human being?" doesn't enter into the equation in any way that's relevant in and of itself....

If we set aside the law and focus on ethics, you might be right. Michael Seto (no pro-contact apologist by any means) recognized this in his book, "Internet Sex Offenders". Kids are ready to give informed consent at different ages, but his conclusion is that trying to sort them out is grossly impractical. I think pedophiles' intense interest in this possibility for young ages is understandable but ultimately fruitless.

In your experience, have other anti-contact pedos (say, the ones at VirPed) really given it that much thought? Or are their views pretty much consistent with the old "sex-with-kids-is-just wrong", "they-just-don't-understand", and "it's-different-because-they-can't-consent" fallaces that end up being regurgitated in every debate I've had about this with a non ever?

In any group of people there is great variability in terms of how thoughtful they are and how bound to typical assumptions. Yes, I think many of our VP members haven't thought about it much. But I see no road to happiness in telling them that in theory society could change so they could fulfill their desires -- even if it was true. Akin to, "Hey, great news! There might be a cure for your disease five years after you're dead!" There is a road open to feeling better I think in terms of "You have an attraction you did not choose and cannot change. If you don't act on it, there's no cause for feeling bad about yourself." They get to read posts from other VP members saying how they would never take a pill to make their pedophilia go away and how they think their attraction to children is a positive thing. I think that's a route to happiness that doesn't stir up that primal desire for real sex with a real kid that can give rise today only to frustration.

Other VP members have thought about it a great deal. Some are former pro-contact people themselves.