Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).
Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?
I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.
Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Are you the decider of which laws are?And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.It's called, choice.
Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.
Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?
Are our laws infallible?
According to our first Amendment, we all have the right to assume that role and to petition our government for a redress of those concerns.
So...
Yeah.
Wow, I just found this. . .
Anna Yocca Charged With Attempted Murder After Botched Coat Hanger Abortion
Read more: Anna Yocca Charged With Attempted Murder After Botched Coat Hanger Abortion - The Dreamin Demon
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @dreamindemon on Twitter | thedreamindemon on Facebook
So much for "her body her choice". . . huh.
Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?
I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.
Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
That's not anything remotely close to the legal definition of molestation. Why then should we change the law to make it closer to your personal preferences?
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Under the law? An aborted fetus isn't a child. Remember.....nothing of the Federal Fetal Protection law applies to abortion. Not even its terminology.
It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).
Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?
I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.
Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
That's not anything remotely close to the legal definition of molestation. Why then should we change the law to make it closer to your personal preferences?
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Under the law? An aborted fetus isn't a child. Remember.....nothing of the Federal Fetal Protection law applies to abortion. Not even its terminology.
In Pacific Grove, California, under a city ordinance, tourist monarch butterflies have a right to “peaceful occupancy” during their annual convention there.
Even if the butterflies are swarming one’s home, interfering with occupancy and use, they can only be removed to another location on application to the police. Here’s the ordinance:
11.48.010 Interference With Prohibited.
It is declared to be unlawful for any person to molest or interfere with, in any way, the peaceful occupancy of the monarch butterflies on their annual visit to the city of Pacific Grove, and during the entire time they remain within the corporate limits of the city, in whatever spot they may choose to stop in, . . .
HUH.
Imagine that.
A law against the molestation of BUTTERFLIES.
Interesting.
It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?
I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.
Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Holyshit.Are you the decider of which laws are?And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.It's called, choice.
Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.
Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?
Are our laws infallible?
According to our first Amendment, we all have the right to assume that role and to petition our government for a redress of those concerns.
So...
Yeah.
That still doesn't make you the decider. 
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
That's not anything remotely close to the legal definition of molestation. Why then should we change the law to make it closer to your personal preferences?
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Under the law? An aborted fetus isn't a child. Remember.....nothing of the Federal Fetal Protection law applies to abortion. Not even its terminology.
In Pacific Grove, California, under a city ordinance, tourist monarch butterflies have a right to “peaceful occupancy” during their annual convention there.
Even if the butterflies are swarming one’s home, interfering with occupancy and use, they can only be removed to another location on application to the police. Here’s the ordinance:
11.48.010 Interference With Prohibited.
It is declared to be unlawful for any person to molest or interfere with, in any way, the peaceful occupancy of the monarch butterflies on their annual visit to the city of Pacific Grove, and during the entire time they remain within the corporate limits of the city, in whatever spot they may choose to stop in, . . .
HUH.
Imagine that.
A law against the molestation of BUTTERFLIES.
Interesting.
Laughing......you're looking at statutes on butterflies as evidence that abortion should be considered child molestation?
Um, wow. Just....wow.
It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
I also cited a LAW in California that makes the point even better.
Didn't I.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
That's not anything remotely close to the legal definition of molestation. Why then should we change the law to make it closer to your personal preferences?
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
Under the law? An aborted fetus isn't a child. Remember.....nothing of the Federal Fetal Protection law applies to abortion. Not even its terminology.
In Pacific Grove, California, under a city ordinance, tourist monarch butterflies have a right to “peaceful occupancy” during their annual convention there.
Even if the butterflies are swarming one’s home, interfering with occupancy and use, they can only be removed to another location on application to the police. Here’s the ordinance:
11.48.010 Interference With Prohibited.
It is declared to be unlawful for any person to molest or interfere with, in any way, the peaceful occupancy of the monarch butterflies on their annual visit to the city of Pacific Grove, and during the entire time they remain within the corporate limits of the city, in whatever spot they may choose to stop in, . . .
HUH.
Imagine that.
A law against the molestation of BUTTERFLIES.
Interesting.
Laughing......you're looking at statutes on butterflies as evidence that abortion should be considered child molestation?
Um, wow. Just....wow.
"Appeal to Ridicule" noted.
It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
I also cited a LAW in California that makes the point even better.
Didn't I.
On....butterflies.
And you wonder why your ilk have a record of perfect failure using your pseudo-legal gibberish in court.
It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
I also cited a LAW in California that makes the point even better.
Didn't I.
On....butterflies.
And you wonder why your ilk have a record of perfect failure using your pseudo-legal gibberish in court.
Meh.
More appeals to ridicule. It's getting boring now.
On that note, I'm off to bed.
Sleep Tight! I know I will.
Perhaps in your mind, you did. But in reality, not really; since in the U.S., molest can mean disturb.It's cute how you use a dictionary from Great Britain to define terms in the U.S. to suit your needs.Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.
Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.
Here's the Roe Decision......
Roe v. Wade
Show me.
Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.
Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.
If you believe it should be, make your case.
Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.
Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.
History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.
By the definition I provided (ref. number one)
Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?
Yes or no?
I also cited a LAW in California that makes the point even better.
Didn't I.
Holyshit.Are you the decider of which laws are?And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.
Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?
Are our laws infallible?
According to our first Amendment, we all have the right to assume that role and to petition our government for a redress of those concerns.
So...
Yeah.
I can understand how your confused, accept yourself.Well that makes even less sense than anything else you've spewed.Right, you are attracted to men. It is simple to see.Oops, my bad. You post like a girl so I figured you were one.???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.
Elektra Records Official Website
I'm glad to see you understand why others think you post like a girl.I can understand how your confused, accept yourself.Well that makes even less sense than anything else you've spewed.Right, you are attracted to men. It is simple to see.Oops, my bad. You post like a girl so I figured you were one.???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.
Elektra Records Official Website
Are you complaining about abortions because they disturb unborn children?
