In this response to Martin's "Should Deliberate Democratic Inclusion Extend to Children?" I examine Martin's comments against the "argument from circumspection," which is dubious regarding the claims children make to change democratic policies and procedures. I explain there are good reasons for being circumspect. One of these concerns the need for all in public discourse to supply not just claims but reasons and to have both these claims and reasons adjudicated in the logical space of reasons. Children, as with all who practice public discourse, must have their claims and reasons assessed for these to be admitted as candidates for changing policies and procedures. This augurs for a case-by-case inclusion of children, as opposed to a wholesale one. [For "Should Deliberative Democratic Inclusion Extend to Children?," see EJ1194327.]