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

An appalling lack of knowledge of the Law of the Land on your part does not enable you to redefine legal terminology to suit your theist agenda.

 

That crap has been stated here....could YOU show proof it's true? NO ONE ELSE EVER HAS.....maybe YOU could.

No one has ever said that except Anti-Choicers.....them saying it doesn't make it true .

Where did you form such an erroneous idea?? Out of thin air? Hearing another Anti-Choicer say it???

Again: A human fetus is human ( an adjective, now look up "adjective") . It is, BY LAW, not A human being (NOUN) as in "person" until birth when it gets rights.


Did you know that with "rights" comes restrictions?? We ALL got 'em...ALL of us ...even a fetus IF it's deemed a person.

So even if a fetus was deemed A human being, A person, it STILL wouldn't have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life any more than you or I could

 

Disingenuous misuse of terminology is typical theist misdirection.

A human fetus is only a POTENTIAL human being.

There is no guarantee that a fetus will ever fully become a human being.

A large percentage of human fetuses spontaneously abort because they won't successfully become human beings.

The Law of the Land does not grant a human fetus any rights until AFTER it is NATURALLY BORN.

The legal ramification of granting rights to human fetuses would open up a can of worms that no theist is ever willing to address.

 

No, it does not because a FETUS is only a POTENTIAL human being.

 

I really don't think that poster wants to learn anything....this has gone on for pages and pages and he just repeats his mantra... with no point in sight..

 

No I've used all definitions correctly.

Manslaughter can only be charged when it is a human being.

Either a fetus is a human being with the right to life and manslaughter applies, or it is not a human being and does not have a right to life.

 

On the contrary.

In order for abortion to be legal, it must either state that a fetus is not a human being, or it must say that killing a human being in this case is allowed.

 

Then the driver should not be charged with manslaughter.

 

Wanted vs unwanted does not change what a fetus is.

 

Which is a great example of why you and so many others are trying to obfuscate.

You know, as do these other posters, that if an abortion induced by accidental trauma is manslaughter, then abortion clinics are committing murder.

 

It was not "born", it was a trauma induced miscarriage.

Again I refer you to the dictionary where a trauma induced miscarriage is referred to as a natural abortion. Physical damage resulting in the expulsion of the fetus from a woman's body is not "birth".

A non-viable fetus isn't born, it is miscarried.

Clearly my grasp of English is much better than yours.

 

That's exactly what they're trying to dance around.

In the case of a third party causing the death of an unborn child, the child is a human being, and has the right to life, allowing the charge of manslaughter/murder.

In the case of what the mother wants, the child is a clump of cells, has no rights, and manslaughter/murder cannot be applied.

 

I've shown it multiple times.

Clearly you think that when someone else kills a woman's unborn, it's murder/manslaughter.

Clearly you think when the woman/doctor kills a woman's unborn, it is not murder/manslaughter.

I'm not the one with a contradictory position, that's all you.

 

I don't have to prove anything.

The child was miscarried due to trauma, it died. That is the definition of miscarriage/abortion.

 

"Want" is not a requirement for murder charges.

 

The proof is that the other driver is being charged.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
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 ""

Oh, dear, did I "obsfuscate " you? Get you all confused??...and no, your statement isn't logical...


If abortion clinics, women, are committing murder WHY HAVEN'T YOU CALLED THE COPS!?????

 

No, it isn't and you lying about it won't change a thing. That isn't a contradictory statement....it's the law


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

 

Clearly, from that statement , it shows you to be seriously ""obsfuscated"....

 

The fetus became a PERSON after it was NATURALLY BORN and that was the basis of the manslaughter charge.

That you fail to comprehend the Law of the Land is not my problem.

 

Your appalling failure to comprehend the Law of the Land is on display again.

The Law of the Land deals with NATURALLY BORN PERSONS!

That a fetus is a POTENTIAL human being is utterly irrelevant.

 

Only according to those who FAIL to comprehend how the Law of the Land operates.

 

Utterly inane non sequitur deflection!

 

You are entitled to your misinformed opinion but unless you can PROVE that it was a miscarriage and not premature labor you have squat. The article refers to the term stillborn which implies premature labor and not a miscarriage.

 

Now you are just confusing yourself!



If it was a "child" then it wasn't an abortion.

If would have to be a fetus for it to have been an abortion.

Yes, you do still have to prove that the woman did NOT go into premature labor for your inane allegation. Where is your evidence that it was NOT premature labor? The article states stillborn implying premature labor.