But why facilitate the normalisation of such a sexual deviancy?
Well. what exactly is "normalised" here in your opinion? The sexual "deviancy" is, as far as we know, pretty much determined by genetic factors (IIRC, other factors aren't completely out of the equation, but it's mostly genes). So paedophiles can't really do anything about being
attracted to children, but they
can refrain from acting on it. Now, if there's a harmless alternative suited to, well, their needs (and no one is harmed by some drawings), what's the problem? It's not like anyone will
become a paedophile by looking at the drawings, just as nobody turns gay by watching gay porn (note that I'm not equalling paedophiles and homosexuals or the "morality" of them acting on their sexual preferences, just the genetic origin of it).
So, the "problem" in my point of view is that the sexual needs of paedophiles can't ever be fulfilled, as the preferred partners can't consent. Thus, giving them the "next best thing" would be something good. After all, paedophiles aren't the problem, child molesters are. And there's a pretty big difference between them.
I don't like these drawings, but they're harming no one, and as long as that's the case, well, if anyone finds a a use case for them, that's their thing. But you certainly cannot excuse any abuse of actual children with "but the pictures showed it's normal", that is for sure. Just in case someone thinks I want to defend child molesters...