It is inarguable (per those legal definitions) that an abortion is a molestation in the legal and criminal sense.

An aborted child is a molested child.

In short...

A human being in its most basic state is the young of the parents who created them.

A child (their young) even in the first days of life (zygote, embryo, fetus) would qualify.

Like I said on the other side: Even if we can't agree on the exact moment that a child's life begins can we at least agree that it is that moment (whenever it is) that their rights begin? Or, should begin?

This debate question has nothing to do with cloning but you are still wrong.

If you 'create' a fetus in the lab..... it is still the 'young' of the person who created it.

That has nothing to do with the debate question.

Read it again.

I said she missed the point of the question.

She was trying to make it as though it was about whether or not the woman was molested... when the point of the question is about the molestation of the child.

I never said she was wrong.

I said that she missed the point and I said so because she didn't even try to address the question or answer it.

She used it to launch into an argument of her own instead.

I never said she was wrong.

I said that she missed the point and I said so because she didn't even try to address the question or answer it.

She used it to launch into an argument of her own instead.

LOL. Good timing on the edit.

You disputed the wrong person, Izzy.

You and I agree that it's a child.

Is that even english?

What are your thoughts on the laws that we already have that say it's a child?

That was a very nice and interesting essay. However, I am not just making a play on words.

I am trying to point out the fact that an abortion MORE than meets the legal criteria to be seen as a non-sexual molestation.

I did some reading just to give you a few examples to support my claims and to refute some of yours.

"Crimes against the person, which include for example assaults, unlawful threats, non-sexual molestation and sexual offences, increased by 3 percent. "

( http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics/reported-offences.html )

"I have studied the interview to determine if there are grounds for suspicion of some other crime, primarily molestation or sexual molestation, but find that such is not the case according to my analysis.” The non-sexual molestation of Anna Ardin is to be further investigated. " ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/09/500069.html )

I'm sure I could find more examples than that if I wanted to.

It's not used as often in legal arguments as it used to be but I have read many legal cases where (like the molestation of butterflies) the word molestation was used to define charges made in all sorts of abuse and assaults cases. Even in illegal physical searches cases.

A molestation that results in death is a bit more severe than an instance of being 'bothered.'

Isn't it?

You don't seem to understand what the word molest means. A rape is a crime because of the physical (molesting) aspect of the assault. The sexual component is just that... a component or aspect. Do I really need to find you some examples of NON-sexual molestation?

Or is that something you are able to research for yourself?

I'll tell you this, if you find the answers for yourself... you'll not only see my point is valid but you will have a whole new appreciation for the applicability of the word in various situations.

using what you just said...

Explain how the law in Pacific Grove can apply to butterflies but not to a child in the womb.

"Pro-abortion, like pro-gay marriage, pro-Israel, pro-gun, etc means you are for the practice of abortion being legal.

It does not mean everyone has to have abortions all the time, like being pro-gay marriage doesn't mean you think everyone should have a gay marriage, or being pro-gun doesn't mean you think everyone should have to have a gun. It just means you think those things should be legal and allowed.

Please define prochoice and proabortion for me and see if they don't have almost the exact same meaning, when it comes down to it. You might be able to use different words for each but ultimately they both mean supporting abortion as a legitimate, legal, medical option."

Chad, I agree with you on all of that! 100%

I think you meant this message for Ismaila or someone else.

Look at the graphic at the top of the page.

I'm saying that an abortion meets the legal criteria to be seen as a crime of molestation against the child.

Yes. They are.

The laws were written with legal and other definitions as their basis.

Why do you suppose Planned Parenthood never challenged that legal definition, despite their knowing that it would later be used to fight against abortion?

"Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) was disappointed by the vote. "This would be the first time in the federal legal system that we would begin to recognize a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus. That's what the bill is trying to do."

Conyers added, "Most people understand that [Roe] is under attack and that's why the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive Action League is opposed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is opposed, the National Abortion Federation is opposed, the National Women's Law Center is opposed," Conyers said. "You think they don't understand this bill very much? I think they do."

I told you that the definition you posted was also valid.

You will not say the same for the ones I posted.

And that's why YOU are cherry picking and I am not.

"Child n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.

"

I posted for you a link to the U.S. Code that proves you wrong.

And you still live in denial of it.

You are cherry picking.

That's a valid definition too.

But it doesn't exclude all of the other definitions that include children in the womb in theor definitions.

Child:

1: an unborn or recently born person

You've been shown numerous time now - the fact that we already have laws which define them as one and the same but here it is again - just in case you missed it.

" the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."*

"Yes it is molestation of a child if it means bothering a fetus "

I think can all agree that a child in the fetal stage of their life is just a little bit beyond bothered by an abortion.

Can't we?

Disputed by the legal definitions at the top of the page.

Are you claiming that tumors are children and that they are worthy of the protections of our laws?

I'm claiming that a child in the fetal stage of their life is but I know the differences between a child in that part of their life and a tumor.

Do you?

It's very clear that you missed the point completely.

"How do butterflies and abortion correlate? I simply do not understand how you possibly tied butterfly molestation and abortion into a valid argument."

Let me try to walk you through it.

A small town in california has a law against 'molesting butterflies in any way." The fine is $1000 if you get caught molesting a butterfly.

There is an abortion clinic in that town where a woman can legally pay someone to kill and remove a (human) child from her womb.

That got me thinking.

Why are the butterflies being afforded more legal protections from molestations than the children are?

So, the comparison is not between butterflies and abortion as you are suggesting.

It's an objective comparison of the priorities of the people and the law makes in both situations where molestations are taking place.

So, fight for them as we are fighting for the rights of children in the womb.

You can be like these guys...

Our laws are not infallible.

That's we we have a 1st Amendment right to speak and to lobby for a redress of our grienvences.

Our laws that already recognize a child in the womb as a legal person and that make it a crime in many cases to violate them - is a step in the right direction towards protecting their rights.

However, we still have some inconsistencies that remain and those need to be corrected.

I don't agree that human rights are somethiung that is givien.

I see them as being inherent.

If you are a human being (and a child in the womb is one) you automatically have human rights.

If you are a plant?

Not so much.

Be it murder one or murder two - either one supports my claim that the child is a human child and that their rights were violated.

Period.

You can dance on the head of a pin about it all you want to but 'murder' has a specific meaning and that fact that a person can be charged with murder for killing a child in the womb... only further supports my claim that they are 1. Children and 2. That abortion violates their rights.

Even if the charge is 2nd Degree murder... it still supports my claim that the child while in the womb is a human being and was violated.

Do you disagree that the legal definition of murder is one person unlawfully killing another?

We already have many laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb a crime or murder.

Those laws make exceptions (for now) to allow for abortions.

We are working on that inconsistency.

What about people who call themselves "pro-abortion?"

The semantics are of not interest to me at all.

Words have meaning.

So, I'm trying to help people see that an abortion in reality is a molestation of a child.

You say that no one is debating that but look again. They are.

My views are also based upon the definitions in our laws against killing and harming children in the womb.

In order to maintain your view that an abortion doesn't (also) violate a child?

You have to ignore those laws and all the other information I've sown you.

I agree with you that we should avoid putting children into harms way.

I just draw the line at KILLING them as a means to keep them out of harms way.

Of course the child doesn't know.

Neither would a newborn know (in most cases) if it were being molested or if his or her rights were being violated.

Are you making a claim that because the child doesn't know it's somehow okay to molest them?

1. I disagree that it is only semantics and

2. As you can see, it's been very debatible.

Ughhhmmm

It's the child who is molested not the woman.

Sure.... this could get lengthy so...

What is it specifically that you would like for me to explain?

My interest in the 'molestation' applicability in the context of this debate?

Or what?

I posted the definitions.

Yes. I knew what they were ahead of time.

I created the graphic a long time ago.