I'm not confusing the two. Part of my point was sexual abuse can escalate into more serous abductions. By acting as a deterrent, it may have an effect far greater than the 27 children saved would imply. As evidence in countries without such strict systems, abduction, or at least sex slavery, can run rampant.
My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.
You may not be "confusing" the two - because you're doing it consciously - but you're conflating them. From what I know, most sexual abuse is committed by friends and family, not strangers. The AMBER alerts seemed to be targeted at abductions by strangers. Put another way, AMBER alerts are targeted at the minority of sexual abuses, not the majority.
My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.