A person CAN object to an action, (pedoism) and at the same time also object to a proposed mechanism (the current paradigm of using a monopolistic based legal edict ) which attempts to control or prevent it.
My objection to legal edicts which ARISE from coercion is well chronicled here. My objection to using force against a person who hasn't or cannot consent is also well documented.
There is much irony in your proposal. Here's why....I reject using force to cause an interaction with an unwilling participant, in this case one who has not or cannot consent. Hence I reject pedoism,
I also reject using force to encompass people in a legal apparatus, hence I reject the form of your legal edict, but embrace the intent of it, which is preventing nonconsensual interactions, in this instance, pedoism.
However the ironical part is, you can't use a coercion based system to then eliminate coercion based actions, since the use of the coercion based system ensures coercion remains present.
So, yes dipshit, Pedoism is a bad thing, and so is the coercion based system that your legal edict arises from.
But please carry on, don't let my logic derail your faulty assumptions.