And I am trying to point out by the same criteria tapping someone on the shoulder MORE than meets the legal standard to be seen as a non-sexual molestation.

Which completely devalues the word and renders it meaningless.

Yes . . . yes I did.

Sigh. I blame the weed, man.

Well by this point I've seen half a dozen different contradictory definitions of the word... I'm surprised you still think you can assert its objective meaning.

A rape is a crime because of the physical (molesting) aspect of the assault. The sexual component is just that... a component or aspect.

I'm confused... are these part of the same point? They're one right after another with no real conclusion or link so I assumed they were.

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.

I'm well aware of how to use words in different situations. 'The caravan arrived at the city unmolested,' for example, means the caravan arrived undisturbed, not arrived un-sexually abused. 'The Rape of Nanking' doesn't refer to anyone actually physically inserting their penis into a city against the will of the city, it's just a play on words to illustrate the horror and depravity of what happened in Nanking.

We can use words like this because it gets the point across and people still get what we mean when we talk like that. However, if you want to get extremely literal about this practice, you start to destroy the point of language by making everything too vague and ambiguous to be of any practical use.

For example, one of the words used to define "rape" is "violate." If we consider every time anyone violates anything - a trespassing law, the trust of their friends, a contract, etc - legally the exact same thing as rape, our prisons would literally be packed to the ceiling with convicts. If you tried to claim a baby crying in a restaurant was molesting you because he was annoying you, technically, according to your subjective definition of the word, you're correct; you'd also look like a damn fool and nobody from the Supreme Court on up would take you seriously.

The problem is you're working language backwards. Most people try to find a word that most clearly and accurately describes what they are trying to say. You're doing the exact opposite, finding words that can just barely by some stretch of the imagination be made to work in certain, specific circumstances.

I've said several times before the word you (and those lawmakers) are looking for is "disturb."

1 Interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of.

2 Destroy the sleep or relaxation of.

It fits perfectly. It doesn't need to be altered or bent, no part needs to be ignored or omitted for the entire definition of the word to seamlessly apply to the situations you are talking about.

And if you had said "abortions are a form of disturbing things" nobody would be arguing with you.

But you went out of your way to choose a word with an overtly sexual definition, like rape. I can only assume this was to be inflammatory, which is why I argue with you now.

Joe does shit like this all the time.

They're a bunch of fucking hippies in Pac Grove. I'm not unduly surprised their law doesn't make any sense.

And using what I said above, if we want to use the full, complete, comprehensive definition of "molest" it doesn't apply to butterflies or to fetuses. Unless someones diddling butterflies, I guess.

If we want to use a partial, selective, incomplete definition of "molest," we can make it apply to just about anything we like, abortions and butterflies included.

Seeing as how what you really mean is "undisturbed," one small, incomplete part of the definition of "molest," why don't you just say "undisturbed?" If this debate was titled "abortions are a form of disturbing," I think pretty much everyone would agree. But you specifically picked a word with overt and well-known sexual connotations and deliberately chose to ignore all that in favor of using a minor, incomplete part of the definition to make your inflammatory point. This must be why they call you "troll."

You should include the full definition, the part about to make annoying sexual advances to ;specif : to force physical and usually sexual contact on (as a child). I feel it might be kinda relevant, here.

However if you want to stick with the partial and extremely vague definition of the word, sure, abortions are a form of molestation. So is everything else, including walking, driving, talking, playing music, going to school, digging a hole, getting surgery done, hell, I'm molesting you right now as surely as you're molesting me, if "annoy and disturb" is as specific as we want to get with that definition.

I like how you always state your opponent is wrong before you dispute them. Like that makes a difference. Of course you think I'm wrong. Of course I think you're wrong. Stating so does absolutely nothing for your argument, and it's made even worse because you frequently use "you're wrong" instead of an argument.

Anti-abortion means you are against the practice of abortion being legal.

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.

Trolls aren't human . . . . . they're trolls.

It is actually. People who are for choice are also for abortions. It's just that "pro-life" people aren't actually pro-life because a) they go out and kill doctors and nurses at abortion clinics and b) because they could better be described as "anti-choice." Many pro-choice people choose life; anti-choice advocates want to eliminate the ability for others to make that decision.

Borrowing from Idiotbx, here:

Molestation- the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children).

Resource: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So non-sexual molestation would be defined as: the act of... nothing because molestation is a sexual act. Saying non sexual molestation is like saying non-sexual fornication. It doesn't make any sense.