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

Well if it's a human being, then abortion is murder.

Thanks for playing.

 

Well, Jehova does consider feticide a property crime, not homicide...

 

No, I did not.


YOU have no point.

Yes, I answered that. A doctor who performs a consented LEGAL medical procedure on a woman is NOT committing manslaughter...where you get the bizarre, insane, illogical, totally crazy, unreasonable idea that the doctor is committing manslaughter when there is NO "man" (PERSON) involved in an abortion is mystifying.

But I am beginning to believe either you just like to argue with no POINT or you really can't comprehend English...

The driver was charged with manslaughter because the fetus was BORN ( a word that totally seems to mystify you as you seem to have no idea what it means)
and then died from being prematurely born ....the driver caused the death of a BORN person. I have posted that several times and your refusal to read it or comprehend it is getting rather boring and , like your posts, pointless.

 

No, Margot misspoke, a fetus is HUMAN, and as I said several times before ( BUT YOU ONLY SEEM TO COMPREHEND WHEN YOU THINK IT SUPPORTS YOUR WACKY IDEAS) ...as I said several times before a fetus is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being (NOUN) as in "person with rights".



Have you noticed that far from being murder abortion is a legal medical procedure protected by the Supreme Court.....


You haven't noticed that? Really?

Well, if you think it's murder than call the police(911) aND REPORT IT...

 

Uh, I think you mean to say a human embryo is human....it's not a human being...yet.

 

I said HUMAN fetus...........

 

Yes, but you went on to say, ""A human embryo is a human being"""....which it isn't, it IS human (adjective) but not A human being (noun) as in "person".


I know what you meant but of course the opposition pounced on it as the gospel because it was what he wanted to hear.......although he can't seem to "hear" anything that doesn't agree with his ideas...

 

Could you provide a link to """most "pro-choice" organizations oppose laws that allow manslaughter charges against a fetus""""

I'm not doubting that some Pro-Choicers are against the law because it is a sly way for Anti-Choicers to try to have the fetus deemed a person ....which would be silly on their part because it would strengthen laws protecting women's rights to have an abortion

 

Sure.

How about several.

https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-fetal-rights

http://www.salon.com/2003/04/24/fetal_harm/

http://nownj.org/njNews/2003/0427 Fetal homicide laws revisited.htm

 

She didn't misspeak, she inadvertently used logic, which I've managed to get you to do a few times in this very thread as well.

Manslaughter can only be brought against a human being. If it's an animal, a clump of cells, your couch, or a rosebush, manslaughter charges can never apply.

If it is manslaughter when killed without consent, it is manslaughter when killed with consent.

The fetus does not become a human being when convenient, although that is what you're trying to argue.

 

You're still having problems with the definition of miscarriage and abortion I see.

Birth does not incur when a non-viable fetus is spontaneously expelled from the womans body due to trauma. It is, and always will be referred to as a miscarriage, which is synonymous with a natural abortion, by definition.

 

Assumes factoids NOT in evidence.

Where is your proof that it caused an abortion?

The article refers only to the term "stillborn" which implies that the accident caused labor to begin prematurely.

 

You appalling lack of knowledge of abortion is readily apparent.

An abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE that is commonly referred to as INDUCED abortion. That means that it requires MEDICAL INTERVENTION either surgically or via medications in order for there to be an abortion. Furthermore in order for a woman to have an induced abortion she must give INFORMED CONSENT.

So unless you can provide evidence that there was any medical intervention to induce an abortion with the full informed consent of the women it was NOT an abortion.

You also need to prove that the fetus was "non-viable" in order to support your fallacious allegation that it was a "spontaneous" abortion. If the fetus was healthy there would not have been any "spontaneous abortion".

 

You have to PROVE that it was a "non-viable fetus" first.

There is nothing in the article to indicate that it was "non-viable" prior to the accident.

 

That is what YOUR strawman said!

 

Yup, you got something correct, can't charge a dog or a cow

No, it isn't and you lying about it won't change a thing.


Where did I ever say a fetus is a human being when it becomes convenient....I NEVER did which makes you a liar but you'll just repeat the lies and NEVER show proof because you have nothing.

A human fetus is always human, it becomes A human being at birth but since I doubt you looked up what "born" means you probably won't look up "birth".


....and you can go around in your little circles with no point but abortion is still legal and one can get charged with manslaughter for killing a woman's fetus...ALL as it should be

 

No, she would not have had a "spontaneous abortion" with a healthy fetus.

 

It seems as if the unborn are human when convenient and not human when inconvenient. Is it just a clump of cells with no rights or is it a human being. If it is a human being, then it automatically has rights.

 

Care to address the post you quoted?

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, I did not.


YOU have no point.




Yes, I answered that. A doctor who performs a consented LEGAL medical procedure on a woman is NOT committing manslaughter...where you get the bizarre, insane, illogical, totally crazy, unreasonable idea that the doctor is committing manslaughter when there is NO "man" (PERSON) involved in an abortion is mystifying.

But I am beginning to believe either you just like to argue with no POINT or you really can't comprehend English...

The driver was charged with manslaughter because the fetus was BORN ( a word that totally seems to mystify you as you seem to have no idea what it means)
and then died from being prematurely born ....the driver caused the death of a BORN person. I have posted that several times and your refusal to read it or comprehend it is getting rather boring and , like your posts, pointless.""""""

 

The article does not provide those details.

It just refers to stillborn meaning that it was dead upon being born. It could have been any number of factors including trauma from the accident, the premature labor, the lack of fetal development at that stage of the pregnancy or any combination of those and/or other factors not mentioned.

I recommend that you do your own research if you want to find that out for yourself.

 

Thanks..... I think you missed (or purposely ignored the rest of my post : """I'm not doubting that some Pro-Choicers are against the law because it is a sly way for Anti-Choicers to try to have the fetus deemed a person ....which would be silly on their part because it would strengthen laws protecting women's rights to have an abortion ""

 

Because the woman provided the doctor with INFORMED CONSENT to undergo a MEDICAL PROCEDURE!

 

Under the Law of the Land the victim must be a NATURALLY BORN PERSON.

 

The Law of the Land only applies individual right to PERSONS who have already been NATURALLY BORN. A fetus has not yet passed that legal benchmark and thus does not have any individual rights other than those that the woman carrying it wishes to provide.

 

Yes, there are other causes of spontaneous abortion besides an unhealthy fetus.. sometimes its an incompetent cervix.. Lots of other reasons.