My want is to end legalized abortions because they violate the rights of the children that are being denied and killed. MOLESTATION is something that most people think should be illegal. It is not an appeal to emotion - to try to help an abortion proponent realize the fact that abortions are a form of molestations too... in order to help them (the abortion proponents) see that they are being inconsistent in how they apply their views. There is no need for emotions in ANY of that. I can't help it if you (or others) can't get past your emotions - in order to see the actual reasons for the point and comparisons being made. - - - Updated - - - A child is literally killed and dismembered in most (the vast majority) of abortions. How is calling that a 'molestation' going to make it seem any worse than what it ACTUALLY is?
Sams comment - "Your thread is a "guilt by association" terminology arguement, about an unwanted pregnancy." already showed you what guilt by association means, included in that is the following - "Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. " So if you are are not saying I am rejecting any claim, it cannot be a fallacy of guilt by association .. can it
It has as much merit as your claim of association between abortion and molestation. It seems obvious to me - that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy (which is what you are alluding to), when that relies on assuming that consent to one person for an action is implied (or otherwise) consent to another 'person' for a separate action .. do tell me anywhere else that is accepted, do please provide where consent to one person for an action is assumed consent by a different 'person' for a different action. Despite you attempts to take the focus off what the fetus actually does to the woman, it still doesn't change the reality of it.
The one and only reason for this whole thread was to show that pro-lifers don't really think very hard about what they say in this case, and to show that it can be used in favor of the very thing they are trying to get banned, and despite a certain posters last gasp defending it is obvious to anyone that the whole comparison is purely based on projecting emotional overtones.
That's because most people are thinking about the sexual exploitation of children when they hear that word. There is nothing inconsistent about being pro-choice and also feeling that the sexual exploitation of children should be illegal. Then stop with the emotional piggy backing. I've already told you the actual reason that the comparison is made. It's a play on emotions to associate the negatives feelings about one act with another. I'm sure there's a psychology term for what that is.
Educated people (especially legal minded people) know that not all molestations are sexual. "Crimes against the person, which include for example assaults, unlawful threats, non-sexual molestation and sexual offences, increased by 3 percent." Its inconsistent to feel that the sexual molesting of children should be illegal while denying that abortions are molesting and killing children in the womb. There is no emoting taking place on my end. See the link above and read the definitions. NOT ALL MOLESTATIONS ARE SEXUAL. Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) was accused of 'NON-Sexual Molestation' The emotional aspects are only on your end and the psychological term for it is likely 'shame.' I feel some of it myself, when I make these realizations and realize that I need to do more to try to do something about these crimes against children.
Fully agree. It is inconsistent to feel that the molesting of women should be illegal while denying pregnancies are molesting and injuring women. Of course there isn't Yet no shame for the things you want to force onto pregnant women .. says a lot really.
I'm not accusing you of using the word incorrectly, I'm accusing you of choosing the word specifically to tap into the negative feelings about an entirely different set of circumstances for which that word is predominantly used to describe. It's not inconsistent at all when you consider that a child that has been born is conscious, aware, independent and quite able to be damaged for a lifetime by sexual molestation. The damage caused is damage that will be experienced by a person physically capable of experiencing something and retaining memories of it. Not only that, but no child molester has the right to touch the body of another person in that manner without their consent, and absolutely not a child. I'm not sorry to say that I've never felt even the slightest tinge of shame over my opinions on abortion. What I am ashamed of is the attitude, intentional or not, that women are chattel whose purpose is to incubate and give birth and that when that process is in motion, their body stops belonging to them. That to me is what is truly shameful. I admire your resolve, but I despise your position.
Pregnancy is only annoying and disturbing because women don't want to raise a child. Adoption would solve that problem. Besides, could the woman have avoided getting pregnant, if she kept her legs shut? Yes. Could the fetus have chose to not be inside of the woman's body? No.
You have the right to be wrong, I suppose. Who is talking about 'sexual' molestations? I'm not. Correct. Now compare that to an abortion and what an abortion does to a child - and you MIGHT see the same inconsistencies that I am seeing. Again, I was not speaking about you or any other proponent 'personally.' I do sometime wonder what professionals would say and think after reading some of these exchanges, but I'll leave it at that. I can live with that.
The point of the conversation here is that you're using a word that in people's minds means a specific type of action. When you say molest, people think of pedophiles because that's the way the word is almost always used. It's just like when you lifers use the word murder. When you guys use that word, you're using it in the way most people tend to use it, you're not using it to describe a flock of crows which is also one of it's meanings. When I go to compare the lifetime of damage that can be caused to and experienced by a person to the complete nothingness that an aborted fetus will not even experience because it has no capacity to experience anything, I'm hard pressed to find what you're even trying to compare. I understand the way you used the word "you. I'm guilty of doing that myself sometimes. But I wanted to be clear that I personally did not feel any shame about any aspect of my abortion opinions just so we're on the same page.
No, you're wrong about that because pregnancy is thoroughly annoying and disturbing just on its own merits. Pregnancy causes horrible nausea in some women, probably most suffer from some, fatigue, frequent urination, constipation, varicose veins, shortness of breath, awkwardness and clumsiness, annoying food cravings, etc. That is in addition to the permanent body changes and damage caused by pregnancy/childbirth. Now really, who would want to endure nine months of that? I really am annoyed with pro-lifers acting as though pregnancy is something a woman doesn't even notice until a baby pops out.
Will you stop it with these assumptions already? I have explained to you -WHY- the comparison is being made. (to educate people on the fact that an abortion is a form of non -sexual molestation) I have even shared with you - WHERE - the comparison comes from. (i.e. - the irony in the fact that Pacific Grove, CA has a $1,000 fine for anyone who "molests a butterfly in any way - while abortions are completely legal in the same area) Death is a pretty traumatic experience too - isn't it? If it's not - why do we have laws against murder? That's fine but it wasn't necessary.
And I have explained to you that you're full of doodoo. Why make that point? What is the point of explaining that abortion is a form of molestation? If we pretend for a second that the word molest was never used to describe what a sexual predator does to a child, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't be trying to slip that word in as if all of us are ignorant to what the underlying point is supposed to be. But I suppose I can play too. I wish you'd stop molesting women with your repeated attempts to control their bodies. This chronic molestation being done by you and those who think like you to women is shameful. It is my hope that you will stop all the molesting that you're doing because molesting women like you are is horrible. Come to think of it, I guess I never realized just how many molesters there are out there. What's most ironic though is that you're not against molesting people, you just want to pick who gets molested you molesting molester. It is you're able to experience it consciously, sure. A fetus cannot do that and it was never able to at any point in it's existence. Laws against murder are for social stability. Just take a look at the countries around the world where murder laws are not enforced. Are those places you would want to live? Are they places that have a high quality of life? But I like sharing...
Why haven't you called Chuz Life on his use of the word 'molestation' in relation to abortion, but you called Fugazi out on it?
Because there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing the very legal medical procedure of abortion and molestation is a very illegal and morally repugnant act. To basically call women who choose abortions child molesters is just showing how you want to skew the debate.
I like sharing my thoughts. I already explained that for you. Remember? An aborted child does not escape unmolested from the womb. The word molest is not being 'slipped' in there. It's a direct statement. It's sad that you see a want to protect a child's rights as an attempt to 'control women's bodies.' Relax. It's not like we are killing prenatal children or anything. Oh wait. We have the (1st Amendment) right to speak, assemble, and to lobby our government for a redress of our grievances still. Don't we? That's nice.
I don't know. I disagree with his usage of the word "molestation" with regards to abortion, because he's appealing to the emotions by using that word. It's not relevant to the abortion debate.
If you say so. I'm bored with this now. But just know that you're not fooling anyone and making yourself appear ridiculous by making ridiculous comparisons isn't helping your cause. I'm all for the protection of people's rights. But there's only one person involved in a pregnancy(and not so ironically there's only one person involved in a pregnancy who has or deserves rights) so that's the person whose rights I'm concerned about. I couldn't possibly be more relaxed. I just had a good sirloin and an excellent baked potato. Of course you do. I've never once tried to say you can't argue your points or lobby the government. I've just been trying to get you to understand you're wrong and what you're doing is demeaning and disrespectful to women not to mention incredibly arrogant to think that you should have the right to make medical decisions for another person.
It seems clear from consulting a couple of dictionary sites that the meaning of "molestation" and "molest" are FAR more commonly used to refer to sexual actions than anything else. The only other meaning of the words, "annoy, bother, or interfere with" can hardly be applied to a fetus as one can no more "annoy or bother" a fetus than a rock. So it seems clear that the usage of these words is a deliberate attempt to evoke an emotional response, and to distort the actual meaning of the words. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/molestation molestation n. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molestation mo·lest [muh-lest] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy. 2. to make indecent sexual advances to. 3. to assault sexually.
