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.