Sandusky, Pedophilia, and Sympathy

I came across this OP/ED piece on CNN today.  The article is presented in a way that is somewhat misleading.  There is a picture of Jerry Sandusky and the headline reads Do Pedophiles Deserve Sympathy?  I clicked on it mainly because I wanted to see how someone may try to justify the behavior of that monster.  In a court of law he gets the benefit of the doubt, but in my book he is guilty as sin and deserves to rot.

The article makes a clear distinction between someone who has abused a child and someone who has sexual urges towards young children.  Although, technically Sandusky is not a pedophile as his victims reached puberty.  But I am getting off point here.  The author is trying to say that pedophilia is something that cannot be chosen.  He is an associate professor of psychology in Canada.  His point is to ask and suggest that we, as a society, put mechanisms into place that will allow a non offending pedophile to get help without the fear of mandatory report laws.

He talks about some programs that are already in place around the world and how that they seem to be effective.

The best example of this effort is the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld in Germany, supported financially by private donation. It began with a media campaign aimed at people struggling to resist their sexual interests to children. By offering counseling and other services, it is expected that they can remain offense-free. Hundreds of people contacted the Dunkelfeld project after it was established. People from all over the world, including Austria, Switzerland and England, turned to the assistance.
Another example is the Circles of Support and Accountability, which was developed in Canada. The programs are staffed by volunteers who have received training from professionals. They provide support to people who are under no mandate to attend but are nonetheless seeking help to not commit sexual offenses

There is not enough data to look at long-term results, but short-term results seem to be promising.

I have always admitted that I sometimes leave the reservation on "traditional" conservative thought.  Sexuality is one of these road trips.   I do believe that you are born with your sexual preference.  It is somehow hard-wired into you.  Now, having sex is a choice, at least in most cases.  But feelings of attraction are what they are.  I am 100% against gay marriage as well as civil unions.  I base that on my religious beliefs.  But I do think that you are either gay or you are not.  You are either attracted to children or you are not.   I don't totally dismiss other factors, but I do think there is a biological function in there somewhere.  If it were simply lust as some say, it would happen more often.  Homosexuality only happens in about 10% of the population.  Pedophilia is even less common.

Therefore, I don't believe that things like pedophilia can be "cured".  It can be controlled possibly, but not cured.  So does making help available to men (and rarely women) a bad thing?  Probably not, as long as they have not abused.

But for me the real money quote in this article is this:

Pedophilic men have significantly less white matter, which is the connective tissue that is responsible for communication between different regions in the brain. Pedophiles perform more poorly on various tests of brain function, tend to be shorter in height and are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous (characteristics that are observable before birth). Although nonbiological features may yet turn up to be relevant, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain the research findings without there being a strong role of biology

Is it just me or did this man just make another reason to abort babies that could "possibly" show signs of being a pedophile?  This is the continued slippery slope that is part and parcel on the left.  They "normalize" something, such as abortion, homosexuality, and the push to start normalizing pedophilia has already begun.  So is really that far of leap to think that this man is suggesting that aborting babies that show the "characteristics" of pedophilia should be aborted?  I don't think it is.