Yes, many comments!

1) "Evidence of demonstrable harm" does not include the type of "moral" harm argued in the case of early sex. It only includes physical harm inflicted upon their bodies and properties.

2) and is a slippery slope. Once you admit you know you are throwing innocents in jail, you'll start doing it with more and more offences. If you are willing to throw an innocent in jail, you are willing to throw them all. After all, they are all equally innocent.

3) Precisely because it is impossible to have a completely safe society, you have to compromise for a very free, somewhat unsafe one. The returns on safety from ever more draconian laws are decreasing, eventually even negative, and far more damaging in what they do to the freedom of everyone.

4) Besides, emotions are personal, not general. Allowing people to legislate and adjudicate by emotion is no different and no better than subjecting yourself to a tyrant's whims. The tyrant, after all, legislates and adjudicates by emotion.

6) The better comparison of AOC laws would be with drug and, especially, alcohol, laws. I have seen no important "protection" argument that I haven't also seen in Temperance documents from the late 19th / early 20th centuries. But, despite their good intentions, we know how it ended.

8) like you cannot write in harsher sentences for the already existing rape / sexual abuse crimes when committed on a child.

9) Funny that all who want more or wider laws because people are evil, never notice the fact that precisely because people are evil, more laws mean better chances at exploiting the law against someone.