man involved in car crash charged with manslaughter after woman has miscarriage

Sure I am.

I understand exactly what you're saying.

A fetus is a human being when it's convenient for you, and it's not a human being when it's convenient for you, depending on your emotional state at any given time.

Pretty much the same for every liberal position.

 

What occurred after the accident was NOT an abortion.

It could potentially be termed a miscarriage but the article referred to a stillborn infant which implies she went into labor.

 

Where is your evidence that the car crash caused an abortion?

The article refers to the infant as STILLBORN which would be as a result of labor, not an abortion.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to prove that the fetus was dead PRIOR to the induced labor caused by the accident.

At 19 weeks the lungs are not sufficiently developed to survive outside of the uterus.

 

You obviously failed to understand the Webster definition.

Unless you can PROVE that the fetus was dead prior to the induced labor from the accident it does not fit Webster's definition.

 

Nope, that would be YOUR strawman!

 

Prove that the fetus was dead prior to the accident induced labor.

 

The fetus became a legal person after the birth.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?

 

Now you are contradicting your own quoted definition of abortion!

Please try and figure out what you are trying to convey before posting nonsense.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Again, you are flailing around because you have no point.

You may call it anything you want ( you obviously don't even know what "abortion" means or does) , you still won't be correct or have any influence on abortion or the manslaughter charges.."""

No, no where did I ever post that and you are deliberately lying because you have no point at all.

Can you show proof I posted that?

You can't and you know what that makes you...... a typical Repub/Conservative who has to lie because they never have any facts.

 

Lying? I don't think so.. He's simply stupid.

 

Where's the lie?

When a fetus is unwanted it's not manslaughter.

When a fetus is wanted it's manslaughter (unless it's the father of the fetus that wants it).

Manslaughter can only be charged against a human being.

The left says a fetus is not a human being, it's just a clump of cells.

A clump of cells being removed from your body for any reason and by anyone is not manslaughter.

I'm posting facts, you're posting emotion, as usual.

 

No, I have contradicted myself, the person I quoted is contradicting themselves.

If it's "birth" when artificially induced under trauma, then taking a morning after pill or going to an abortion doctor is also "birth".

Clearly that's not true, because the accident didn't cause a birth, it caused an abortion.

 

So if it's "birth" when the fetus comes out of the body, an abortion doctor is delivering a baby through "birth", then killing it.

The distinction between birth and death is that the inducement is unnatural, and it is killed soon after.

Clearly the trauma caused the woman to abort the fetus, not give birth.

A non-viable fetus being expelled from the body is a spontaneous abortion.

 

I don't have to prove anything.

When a non-viable fetus is expelled from the womb, it's an abortion.

 

Except that's what he said, verbatim.

 

Unnecessary.

If she had experienced the same effect without the car crash, it would have been known as a miscarriage, or a "spontaneous abortion".

 

If it was dead before it was aborted/born, how is someone being charged with manslaughter?

 

You posted :
vman12 said: ↑
Sure I am.

I understand exactly what you're saying.

A fetus is a human being when it's convenient for you, and it's not a human being when it's convenient for you, depending on your emotional state at any given time.

Pretty much the same for every liberal position."""""""


I then denied it and asked for proof in post 86....

Your inability to comprehend written words may have to do with an overly emotional state.

NO where did I ever state that manslaughter charges hinge on whether the fetus was wanted or not.


A fetus IS NOT A human being, it is human and but it is not A human being as in "person".....if you knew the difference between an adjective(human) and a noun ( A human being) that would help.


A fetus becomes A human being , as in a PERSON, at birth, the fetus in this case was BORN so became a PERSON...so manslaughter charge could be brought.



Anyone removing anything from your body without your permission will be charged with a crime.

 

Oh I'm not emotional at all, I think that's called projection.

The state of being a human being is required to have manslaughter charges applied.

Who kills that human being is irrelevant, and the state of "wanted" is irrelevant to manslaughter.

Either the fetus is a human being and anyone who kills is is committing manslaughter, or it is not a human being and anyone who kills it is not committing manslaughter.

 

GoodGAWD!

In this instance the fetus was BORN...do you know what BORN means?

It means it's been BORN so it then becomes a person.....and then it died...so it was a case of manslaughter.

IF you have more questions why don't you call the attorney general of that state and asked them. I have suggested this to you before, why haven't you done it?

 

Oh we're back on this again.

No, it was an induced miscarriage, which is also known as an abortion.

If we use your argument and a car crash causes birth, then going to an abortion doctor is also birth.

Why isn't the doctor charged with manslaughter?

 

An abortion is a medical procedure... voluntary.. A car crash isn't. Have you tried out your stupid argument on any intelligent people?

 

An abortion is a medical procedure... voluntary.. A car crash isn't. Have you tried out your stupid argument on any intelligent people?

An abortion is a medical procedure called dilation and curettage.

 

A trauma induced miscarriage is referred to as a "natural abortion", not a "birth".

I'm still looking for one of those intelligent people.