Molestation - 1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute esp. with hostile intent or injurious effect. Pro-lifers will use this as a gutter attempt to project some sort of guilt trip onto pro-choice people, what they don't seem to see is that the above definition can be applied to pregnant women as well. To annoy - make (someone) a little angry; irritate: (archaic - harm or attack repeatedly) To disturb - interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of To persecute - harass or annoy (someone) persistently Hostile intent - The threat of imminent use of force injurious effect - Causing or tending to cause injury; harmful: A non-consenting pregnant women would certainly be annoyed at being pregnant, even the archaic definition fits for the woman, pregnancy is her being harmed and being attacked repeatedly. A non-consenting pregnant woman would certainly be disturbed at being pregnant, and pregnancy certainly does interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of her body. A non-consenting pregnant woman is certainly being harassed persistently by what the pregnancy is doing to her, and by pro-life zealots. There is hostile intent from the zef, it is using un-consented force to make a woman's body adapt to it All pregnancies cause injury to the women. Non-consented pregnancy is molestation.
The word "molestation" is a word that's associated with sexual assault. Your thread is a "guilt by association" terminology arguement, about an unwanted pregnancy.
Tell that to Chuz as well then because he uses it in combination with abortion, is he also using 'guilt by association' and is abortion a 'sexual assault' BTW : Explain how it is guilt by association? Description of Guilt By Association 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. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P. Therefore P is false It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it." The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate). Please tell me where I am rejecting the claim?
Even if the claim had any merit at all... It seems obvious to me - the claim that a pregnant woman is 'being molested' (by a pregnancy that resulted from her own choices and actions) would seem to be a bit of a stretch - when compared to the death of the child she molests and kills with an abortion. Can a woman really molest herself and then sentence her own child to death for that?
Just to be clear, a pregnancy results from the choices and actions of two people, so the woman is no more than 50% responsible for it. The "She got herself pregnant" accusation is getting tiresome.
Did you really (seriously) think we were not aware of that? Why do you feel something that obvious needs to be added?
Well you didn't specify that you were directing your comment to myself only... so it appeared to be directed at anybody and everybody reading it. LOL Do you seriously believe anyone omitted the fact that it (generally) takes a man and a woman to create a pregnancy?
A response to your post is directed at you. It's the implication, and it's intentional, don't pretend it isn't.
Indeed, the pro-life brain trust has given us it's newest(to me) gem. Abortion is like molestation. Wooheeee it must be say anything day! Mouse fart rutabaga slanket. Fast forward 25 years or so after all the juicy associations have been exhausted. It'll be "Abortion is like when you act like you're going to hold the door open for someone at the convenience store but then you don't" "Abortion is like when you ate lots of garlic but you didn't pop a Mentos afterwards". I just think the ridiculousness gets old. It's hard to have conversations when the person you're debating doesn't even understand the topic enough to know what it IS they are debating, and just as importantly....what it is not.
If you say so. Just so you know, mine are not usually directed at anyone in particular. Not even this one. I've yet to meet anyone so clueless as to think women get pregnant all by themselves.
Let me help bring you up to speed on something. The expression "Abortion is the ultimate child abuse" has been on bumper stickers and web pages for years now. How did you miss that?
I've seen that, I've never heard it associated with molestation before. That's why I said it was news to me.
It was news to me too - the day learned that 'butterflies' could be molested and I learned that they (monarch butterflies) are more protected against molestation by our laws than prenatal children are. "Each October since 1939, Pacific Grove has celebrated their arrival with a welcoming Butterfly Parade, featuring our school children dressed in wings. A 1939 city ordinance authorizes a $1,000 fine for "molesting a butterfly in any way." The people of Pacific Grove have had a long love affair with their butterfly guests and take their protection very seriously."
That's silliness. But then, there are all kinds of kooky laws out there. Now when it's an endangered species, that's a different story.
The point is not the silliness of the law - protecting butterflies. The point is the use of the word 'molestation' and the legal context in which it is being used. Not all 'molestations' are 'sexual' and that's the point.
When you hear the word molestation, is it butterflies that come to your mind? Because when I hear it, my first thought is sexual abuse of a child and I'm willing to bet it's the same for most people. That's why abortion is being associated with that word. Otherwise you guys would just use the word murder like normal. It's piggy backing something you're outraged about onto something else that also outrageous. You're trying to mooch outrage. This is pork barrel outrage.
No. The word 'violation' does. That is exactly why I try to educate people on the fact that the word has other meanings and how it can be applied to other forms of assault. Wrong. We are trying to get you to see and recognize the same violations and inconsistencies that we see.
This is so true. The only reason anyone would compare abortion to molestation is to try and make it seem worse than it actually is. Even Sam could see that's how it was being used in the OP, but he only speaks up about it when a pro-choicer uses it in that manner, but when a pro-lifer does it, well it seems he's disappeared now hasn't he?
