Also, I think this disingenuous game of dressing up pedophilic sexual desire as some sort of benevolent effort to liberate children from oppressive parenting is just silly, and utterly transparent, which is why I’m finding it so hard to take seriously and/or engage with.

This is because Mr. Whittaker is so emotionally invested in the societal institution of "the family." The status quo has inundated him for his entire life with the belief that what goes on within those insular walls of the nuclear family unit is no one else's business, and that kids are essentially the property of their parents. This forces them to overlook the abuse that most often goes on behind those closed doors, sealed off from the rest of the community, and to externalize the threat onto adults who exist outside of the home. Only "authorized" adults outside the immediate family unit, such as uncles and aunts or teachers and coaches, are given a pass on this. This is because the former are family members seen to be acting as extensions of the parents themselves; while the latter are simply taking over the role of the parents for portions of the day and are integrated into the status quo rather than acting independently of it.

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make by appealing to extremes like parental infanticide? So, because a tiny minority of parents kill their children, this somehow invalidates the legitimacy of the desire of the majority of parents to raise their kids in a manner which they deem most conducive to their physical and mental wellbeing, and as a result of this all parents should allow pedophiles to have sex with their children?

Violence perpetrated against kids by parents is not extremely rare. The majority obviously do not kill or even seriously beat their kids, but the great majority of child murders is the result of parents. This should not be taken as an attack on the institution of parenthood itself, but rather with the extreme degree of power granted to parents, and the insular manner in which they are allowed to conduct it, separate from input by the entire community. If parents happen to be bad or troubled people, their kids are at their mercy until something really extreme happens, and it's often too late once it's discovered. But the nature of the institution under the current status quo is almost never questioned, and too many adults--such as Mr. Whittaker--are unfortunately able to live with this.

What he also fails (refuses?) to understand is that what individual parents may deem "raising their kids in a manner conducive to their physical and mental wellbeing" too often translates into conducive to the well-being of maintaining parental control, since many kids' are subjected to emotional abuse masquerading as "discipline" or "tough love." Which is unfortunately tolerated as a legitimate style of "parenting" that is entirely up to the parents themselves.

"And as a result of this, parents should allow their children to have sex with pedophiles?" Mr. Whittaker asks. Note the word "allow," which recognizes the control of parents without considering every possible nuance. Also note his use of the word "sex," which is an emotionally manipulative means of inciting readers to think of specifically intercourse and kinky sexual practices, when in actuality many MAPs have little interest beyond kissing and simple sex play that children often engage in with each other; or, in the case of hebephiles like myself, no major interest in anything other than making out and petting, which young adolescents typically do between each other. No extreme kinkiness or penetration intended under typical circumstances. And beyond all this is the emotional and social side of the romantic desires that have nothing to do with physical sexual activity beyond cuddling or holding of hands, despite the refusal of most Non-MAPs to consider that important side of the equation.