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

No its not...

 

Again, trauma induced miscarriage is referred to as an abortion, not a birth.

 

The incident took place while a non person.

 

mis·car·riage
ˈmisˌkerij,misˈkerij/
noun
noun: miscarriage; plural noun: miscarriages
1.
the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident.

Medical Definition of Spontaneous abortion
Spontaneous abortion: A miscarriage, that is, any pregnancy that is not viable (the fetus cannot survive) or in which the fetus is born before the 20th week of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion occurs in at least 15-20% of all recognized pregnancies and usually takes place before the 13th week of pregnancy.

A spontaneous abortion is as opposed to an induced abortion. In a spontaneous abortion, it is purely accidental, that is spontaneous.

 

A miscarriage is not an abortion.. although a spontaneous abortion is a spontaneous miscarriage.

 

Miscarriage is clearly, by definition, a naturally occurring abortion, or one induced by physical trauma.

When the body expels a non-viable fetus, we have a spontaneous abortion, which is again by definition a miscarriage.

 

It was not an "induced" miscarriage, it was a premature birth.

.


Going to an abortion doctor is "going to an abortion doctor".

Premature birth and abortion are not the same thing....but they may be in your mind...no where else.

Because the doctor didn't cause the premature birth, Duh.

 

Was it caused by the accident? Yes. Therefore it was clearly induced.

Was the fetus viable? No. Therefore it was clearly an induced abortion.

Definitions. Learn em.

As much as you might wish otherwise, reality and facts don't assume a liquid state in the face of your emotion.

And yes, the abortion doctor would induce physical trauma in order for the womans body to intentionally miscarry the fetus. That's the same thing the car accident did.

The difference is one was intentional, the other accidental. The method, trauma, and the result, abortion, are the same.

 

Yup, they're pretty much the same thing, nature does one and a doctor does the other.........

 

Good.

Now explain why the driver was charged, but the doctor was not.

 

And still you don't seem to have a point........the woman lost her fetus due to the actions of another and the state , who you refuse to consult, has decided to call it manslaughter...an issue that has nothing to do with abortion.

 

Of course it does.

The driver caused an abortion and is charged with manslaughter.

A doctor caused an abortion and is not charged with manslaughter.

Why.

 

Because abortion is a legal medical procedure which doctors have a legal right to perform WITH CONSENT of the woman.


Killing someone else's born child is illegal....as was the case here

If the fetus had not been born the driver was charged because he deprived the woman of her fetus without her consent.

 

Right.

Which brings us to the other question:

Why is killing a fetus manslaughter when it's wanted, and not manslaughter when it's not wanted.

Being "wanted" is not a condition for manslaughter to apply, or not to apply.

If this woman was on her way to an abortion doctor to have an abortion before the accident, would the driver still be charged with manslaughter?

If a pregnant woman who doesn't plan to have an abortion causes a car accident and her child is miscarried, is she charged with manslaughter?

 

EVEN if that woman had been on her way to an abortion WHICH IS HER RIGHT, NO one else is able to "decide" that for her, and that is why there's a charge of manslaughter.
It is NOT determined on whether the fetus was wanted or not, that has NO bearing on what another person did.. the pregnant woman's wants have NOTHING to do with the charges brought against another party.

What the woman intended or did not intend has NOTHING to do with the actions of another.....


Have I said it in enough ways?????

 

Car crashes are not a voluntary medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

 

So you come back to the argument that manslaughter is being used for infringing on a woman's choice.

Clearly, it being wanted is the defining characteristic for you, you even stated so in your first sentence.

It still doesn't answer why the abortion doctor isn't charged with manslaughter.

 

Again, wanted vs unwanted.

Name another case where manslaughter is not applicable to the unwanted.

If manslaughter is applied in the unwilling abortion of a fetus, then it must be a human being.

 

That isn't the issue. Are you an American? You don't seem to comprehend the law.

 

It's the only issue.

In order for you to be charged with manslaughter, the victim must be a human being.

 

Like I said.. you don't understand the law.

 

Well then by all means, go ahead and explain it.

 

There isn't a definition of “human being” that excludes the unborn....

 

Ah, so you clearly don't understand the law.

Abortion laws specifically exclude the unborn as a human being. Under abortion laws, a fetus is not recognized to have rights.

In fact, most "pro-choice" organizations oppose laws that allow manslaughter charges against a fetus.

 

No they don't.. A human embryo is a human being.. Its not a cat or dog or pig embryo.