All the information you're looking for is there.
The numbers don't add up to an image that demands pedophiles as a general demographic must answer for the sexual abuse of children.
Already only (approximately, and the exact numbers don't matter for a roughly accurate image) 1/3 people who molest children are pedophiles. If you take into account the prevalence of other forms of child abuse within the global population unrelated to pedophilia, then a much more frightening image forms wherein pedophiles really ought to be the least of our concerns with regards to protecting children.
Consider also that the definition of "sexual abuse" is skewed heavily against consensual encounters which in all likelihood would have been quite good if the law and moral hysteria hadn't gotten in the way of their reaching happy conclusions.
A great number of people treat both children and pedophiles despicably, then use the latter as a scapegoat to hide their guilt of the former.
Thank you for reminding me that a small number of people who showed up in the newspaper and got labeled "pedophiles" unanimously suck for doing terrible things. I hadn't forgotten. It doesn't mean we as an entire demographic answer for their crimes.
I am quite aware that such individuals may choose to use pro-pedophile rhetoric to support their morally broken schemes of behavior. My assertion is that in the absence of hysteria, the average person can tell the difference between myself and someone like that.
Considering the numbers cited above, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that pedophilia - on a base level - means any extra obstacle to moral and ethical behavior.
And it doesn't help the new guy to point out that, in fact, some pedophiles do abuse children! - but in a really contrived way, as if there's a serious causal relationship to be examined. There isn't one. That's the shit Ethan Edwards does that makes me livid, so my apologies if I came across as "flippant".
Btw, we is universal unless otherwise specified.