Overruling yourself again?

"Perhaps after extensive interviews with 3 different psychologists, the prior permission of both parents, social worker investigation to rule out quid pro quos, and a waiting period, a judge could give permission with some confidence that her freedom outweighs any residual risk of harm. Such extensive measures would be appropriate because the baseline probability of a child being inherently interested is so low. We can imagine it -- but the procedure would also sit almost entirely unused."

Almost?

If, after all that Ethan shows up and says, "She says that, but I know she doesn't mean it." Then the judge must accept his testimony as equally impartial; particularly since they know that he was the one who advocated this standard in the first place.

But don't worry, it doesn't get as far as you vetoing the 3 per cent you allow for hypothetically but never in reality. Because, you will argue that 3 per cent choosing is no reason to overhaul a system that works to "protect" the 97 per cent. That she has no right to give a BJ. That she doesn't need to exercise her right and that the risk of potential future harm several decades in the future outweighs this.

You have a far too long track record of magical telepathic objections you have raised to sound even remotely honest about allowing this procedure. You would first need to repudiate most of your previous stances and dismantle the framework that allows them publicly before you have even a chance of being taken seriously on this. Let's not play games. Your record speaks against your claim on this.

Dante